Hartford Ins. Co. v Connolly

[*1] Hartford Ins. Co. v Connolly 2006 NY Slip Op 50616(U) [11 Misc 3d 1079(A)] Decided on March 15, 2006 Supreme Court, Queens County Rios, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on March 15, 2006
Supreme Court, Queens County

The Hartford Insurance Company, Petitioner,

against

Charles Connolly, Respondent.



27313/05

Jaime A. Rios, J.

In this CPLR 7503[b] proceeding the petitioner The Hartford Insurance Company (Hartford) seeks to stay an arbitration for supplemental uninsured motorist (SUM) benefits demanded by its insured the respondent Charles Connolly (Connolly).

The parties agree that the sole issue to be determined by the court is whether Connolly's New York billing address for the Hartford insurance policy obligates Hartford to arbitrate the SUM claim in New York.

Background

On or about October 21, 2001, respondent Connolly was involved in a motor vehicle accident in Yaphank, New York with an underinsured vehicle. At the time, the Connolly vehicle was insured by petitioner, Hartford.

The Hartford policy was a renewal policy issued to Connolly in Florida for a term commencing on February 18, 2001 and ending on February 18, 2002. According to the declaration page for the Hartford policy, the Connolly vehicle was principally garaged in Fort Myers, Florida. A section of the Hartford policy, entitled "Arbitration," expressly states "both parties must agree to arbitration."

It is undisputed that the billing address listed for the Hartford insurance policy corresponds to Connolly's New York residence. The police accident report for the October 21, 2001 accident indicates that Connolly presented a New York driver's license at the scene of the accident and that the vehicle was registered in Florida. [*2]

By demand dated December 1, 2005, which was received by Hartford on December 5, 2005, Connolly sought arbitration of his SUM claim. In response to Connolly's demand, Hartford informed Connolly by letter dated December 7, 2005 that it did not agree to arbitration and is not obligated to proceed to arbitration pursuant to the terms of the Hartford insurance policy. Hartford then timely commenced this proceeding to permanently stay arbitration.

Contentions

Hartford contends, inter alia, that the arbitration should be permanently stayed because pursuant to its policy both the insurer and the insured must agree to arbitration, and it did not agree to arbitrate.

Connolly opposes the petition contending, inter alia, that arbitration is mandatory under New York law, and New York law applies because his billing address and residence are located in New York.

Decision

Where the case presents a potential choice of law issue, the court must first determine whether there is an actual conflict between the laws of the jurisdictions involved (see Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Stolarz, 81 NY2d 219, 222 [1993]).

Under New York law, a party is not obligated to arbitrate a dispute unless there is an explicit and unequivocal agreement to do so (see Waldron v Goddess, 61 NY2d 181 [1984]; Schubtex, Inc. V Snyder, Inc., 49 NY2d 1 [1979]).

Similarly, under Florida law a party may not be forced to submit a dispute to arbitration that the party did not intend and agree to arbitrate (see Maguire, et al. v King, 917 So 2d 263 [2005]; Toca v Olivares, D.D.S., 882 So 2d 465 [2004]; Florida Dpt. Of Ins. v World Re, Inc., 615 So 2d 267 [1993]).

Thus, there is no conflict between New York and Florida law and, therefore, under the law of either jurisdiction a party shall not be obligated to arbitrate a dispute if it did not agree to arbitrate.

Here, it is undisputed that the Hartford policy expressly states that "both parties must agree to arbitration." Moreover, in its petition and supporting papers, Hartford demonstrates that it notified Connolly by letter dated December 7, 2005 that it did not agree to arbitration. As a result, the court finds that the Hartford insurance policy clearly states that arbitration is not mandatory, that Hartford timely notified Connolly that it did not agree to arbitration, and that Hartford is not obligated to arbitrate this dispute. [*3]

Accordingly, it is ordered and adjudged that the petition is granted and the arbitration sought by Charles Connolly in New York is permanently stayed.

Hartford is directed to serve a copy of this judgment with notice of entry on all parties as well as the American Arbitration Association.

Dated: April 12, 2006________________________

J.S.C.