Jones v Progressive

Annotate this Case
[*1] Jones v Progressive 2012 NY Slip Op 51508(U) Decided on August 6, 2012 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on August 6, 2012
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : LaCAVA, J.P., NICOLAI and LaSALLE, JJ
2011-1244 W C.

Francine Jones, Appellant,

against

Progressive, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Yonkers, Westchester County (Richard F. Sweeney, J.), entered June 8, 2010. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.


ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

In this small claims action, plaintiff seeks to recover the sum of $5,000 from the insurance carrier that insured her motor vehicle, alleging that, as a result of defendant's improper investigation of an accident, she had been wrongfully identified as the cause of the accident. The testimony adduced at a nonjury trial established that an inter-company arbitration proceeding had been conducted wherein it had been determined that plaintiff was 100% liable for the accident. Plaintiff asserted that, as a result, she did not recover her $500 deductible under her insurance policy, and she had to pay higher insurance premiums over the following four years. The City Court dismissed the action.

In our view, substantial justice was done between the parties in accordance with the rules and principles of substantive law (UCCA 1804, 1807). Contrary to plaintiff's contentions, the action was properly dismissed since plaintiff has not established any basis to recover the increase in the premiums she had paid to defendant or the $500 deductible under her insurance policy.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. [*2]

LaCava, J.P., Nicolai and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: August 06, 2012

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.