Legal Opinion · Dissent
In re the Arbitration between Philadelphia Insurance & Utica National Insurance Group
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided July 6, 2012Published
1Dissent
Peradotto and Sconiers, JJ.
(dissenting) .We respectfully dissent. Unlike the majority, we conclude that petitioner did not waive its contention that the vehicle owned by its insured and involved in the subject accident was not “used principally for the transportation of persons or property for hire” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5105 (a). We further conclude that there is no evidentiary support or rational basis for the arbitration panel’s determination that the at-issue vehicle — a minivan owned by a nonprofit community residence for developmentally disabled individuals and used by…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- In re the Arbitration between the County of Rockland & Primiano Construction Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1980
- Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1996
- In re the Arbitration between Petrofsky & Allstate InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
- In Re the Arbitration Between Furstenberg & Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1980
- Progressive Casualty Insurance v. New York State Insurance FundAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.