You are here: / / Insured Was Entitled to Settle with Tortfeasor 30 Days After Insured’s...

Insured Was Entitled to Settle with Tortfeasor 30 Days After Insured’s Notification of His Insurer of the Settlement Offer—Although Insurer Sent a Letter Responding to the Notification, It Was Sent to the Wrong Address and the Insured Never Received It

In determining the insurer’s (GEICO’s) motion to stay arbitration should have been denied, the Second Department explained the procedure where the insured has been offered a settlement by the tortfeasor for the full amount of the tortfeasor’s policy and permission to settle is sought from the insured’s carrier (GEICO here). The insured timely notified and requested permission to settle from GEICO, but GEICO sent its response to the wrong address and the insured never received it.  After the passage of 30 days, the insured accepted the settlement and served a demand for arbitration on GEICO re: the supplemental uninsured/underinsured motorist (SUM) benefits under the GEICO policy:

As a general rule, an insured who settles with a tortfeasor in violation of a policy condition requiring his or her insurer’s consent to settle, thereby prejudicing the insurer’s subrogation rights, is precluded from asserting a claim for SUM benefits under the policy … . However, the language set forth in 11 NYCRR 60-2.3(f), which must be included in all motor vehicle liability insurance policies in which SUM coverage has been purchased, creates an exception to this rule in situations where the insured advises the insurer of an offer to settle for the full amount of the tortfeasor’s policy, which obligates the insurer either to consent to the settlement or to advance the settlement amount to the insured and assume the prosecution of the tort action within 30 days … . In the event that the insurer does not timely respond in accordance with this condition, the insured may settle with the tortfeasor without the insurer’s consent, and without forfeiting his or her rights to SUM benefits (see 11 NYCRR 60-2.3[f]…).

Here, the burden was on GEICO to come forward with sufficient facts to establish justification for a stay of arbitration … . GEICO’s submission of its letter requesting additional documentation regarding the settlement, which was addressed to the wrong law firm at an address different from that of the law firm which had initially notified GEICO of the settlement offer, failed to sustain this burden. Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Arciello, 2015 NY Slip Op 05477, 2nd Dept 6-24-15

 

You might also like
FIREARMS FOUND IN THE PARTIALLY CLOSED CENTER CONSOLE OF A VEHICLE PROPERLY SUPPRESSED, DEFENDANTS WERE OUT OF THE VEHICLE AND HANDCUFFED WHEN THE CONSOLE WAS SEARCHED (SECOND DEPT).
THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT DID NOT INCLUDE THE CLOSING DATE OR THE MORTGAGE TERMS; THE CONTRACT WAS THEREFORE UNENFORCEABLE PURSUANT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS (SECOND DEPT).
A FAMILY RELATIONSHIP WITH THE VICTIM, STANDING ALONE, DOES NOT WARRANT AN UPWARD DEPARTURE FROM THE SORA RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING WITH SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE NOTE WAS LOST (PURSUANT TO THE UCC) AND DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT CORRECTION OF THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PREMISES IN THE MORTGAGE BASED UPON MUTUAL MISTAKE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S SEX AND AGE DISCRIMINATION CAUSES OF ACTIONS, AS WELL AS A RETALIATION CAUSE OF ACTION, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST CITY REQUIRES A NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT TO ADD A FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION UNDER FEDERAL LAW, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE A NOTICE OF CLAIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Court Should Not Have Denied Biological Mother’s Petition to Enforce the Visitation Provision in a Surrender Agreement Without Making a Finding Based Upon the Best Interests of the Child—Failure to Make Such a Finding Rendered the Record Insufficient for Review—Matter Sent Back for a Hearing
THE PROOF THE FORECLOSURE NOTICE WAS MAILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE REFEREE’S REPORT WAS BASED UPON INFORMATION IN BUSINESS RECORDS WHICH WERE NOT ATTACHED TO THE AFFIDAVIT IN WHICH THE RECORDS WERE DESCRIBED; THE INFORMATION IN THE AFFIDAVIT WAS THEREFORE INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Family Assessment Response (FAR) Reports Are Not Subject to Expunction (Expungement)... Defendant Entitled to Summary Judgment–Activity (Routine Cleaning) Not...