Matter of Integon Natl. Ins. Co. v Reiffert
Annotate this CaseDecided on October 22, 2008
Supreme Court, Suffolk County
In the Matter of the Application for an Order permanently staying all arbitration proceedings attempted to be had Between Integon National Insurance Company, Petitioner,
against
Crystal Reiffert, Respondent, -and- MELISSA BIONDI, Proposed Additional Respondent.
17371-07
PEKNIC, PEKNIC & SCHAEFER, LLC
Attys. For Petitioner 1005 W. Beech St.
Long Beach, NY 11561
DAVID K. LIEB, PC
Atty. For Respondent
376A Main St.
Center Moriches, NY 11934
MELISSA BIONDI
Proposed Add'l Respondent
299 Monroe Dr.
Mastic Beach, NY 11951
AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSN.
65 Broadway
New York, NY 10006
Thomas F. Whelan, J.
On July 5, 1997, respondent, Crystal Reiffert (hereinafter "Reiffert"), then 11
years old, was struck by a motor vehicle owned and operated by additional respondent, Melissa
Biondi (hereinafter "Biondi"). By demand, dated April 16, 2007, respondent Reiffert requested
arbitration of her uninsured motorist's claim from the petitioner, Integon National Insurance
Company (hereinafter "Integon"). In response to said demand, Integon commenced this special
proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7503 for a judgment staying the arbitration demanded by Reiffert.
Integon's claims for a stay rest on the following alternative theories:(1) that the Biondi vehicle was insured under a policy issued to William Biondi, the father of Biondi; or (2) that the Biondi vehicle was covered under an insurance policy issued to her uncle, respondent John Doe, with whom Biondi may have been residing at the time of the accident; or (3) that the Biondi vehicle was insured under a policy issued directly to Melissa Biondi.
On September 24, 2008, the parties were afforded the opportunity to present evidence in support of or in opposition to the petitioner's demand for a stay of arbitration. At the hearing, Biondi testified that she was insured at the time of the accident under a policy issued to her. However, she did not recall the name of the company that issued the policy nor the agency from which she purchased same. Ms. Biondi further testified that she has no records which would establish any insurance coverage for her or vehicle at the time of the accident. Reiffert adduced evidence that no record of insurance coverage for the Biondi vehicle was available from the Department of Motor Vehicles due to the lapse of time.
Respondent William Biondi also testified at the hearing conducted on September 24, 2008. Such testimony, which was not controverted, established that his daughter, Melissa Biondi, was not a resident of his household on the date of the accident and that prior to said accident she had been removed as an additional insured from his automobile liability policy with the Allstate Insurance Company.
At the conclusion of said hearing, the court dismissed the petition against Allstate Insurance [*2]Company, William Biondi and "John Doe." The court's decision was based upon the testimony which established that Melissa Biondi was not insured under her father's policy or her uncle's policy at the time of the accident. Rather, insurance if any, was provided under a policy issued by an unknown insurance company to Melissa Biondi through an agency whose identity is likewise unknown. Rather than dismiss the claims asserted against the remaining parties the court afforded the petitioner and respondent Reiffert an opportunity to submit further documentation in support of their respective positions. Now in receipt of said submissions and after due consideration thereof, the court finds that the petitioner is not entitled to a permanent stay of the arbitration demanded by its insured, respondent Reiffert.
It is well established that a petitioner seeking to permanently stay the arbitration of an uninsured motorists' claim must make a prima facie showing that the offending party was insured on the date of the accident (see Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Tichman, 185 AD2d 884, 586 NYS2d 1010 [2d Dept 1992]). The petitioner's production of a police accident report containing an insurance code for the offending vehicle or documentation from the Department of Motor Vehicles is sufficient to satisfy a prima facie case for a stay of arbitration (see Matter of Continental Ins. Co. v Biondo, 50 AD3d 1034, 857 NYS2d 588 [2d Dept 2008]). Once the petitioner establishes its prima facie case of coverage, the burden shifts to the respondent to rebut same, which it may do by proof that the offending vehicle was uninsured or that all reasonable efforts to obtain evidence of insurance coverage were unsuccessful (see Matter of Lumbermans Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v Quintero, 305 AD3d 684, 762 NYS2d 82 [2d Dept 2003]; Aetna Ins. Co. v Logue, 68 Misc 2d, 841, 328 NYS2d 569 [NY County Sup Ct 1972]; Merchants Mutual Ins. Co., v Schmid, 56 Misc 2d 360, 288 NYS2d 822 [Nassau Cty Sup Ct 1968]).
Here, the petitioner produced the police accident report which identified the Allstate Insurance Company as the insurer of the Biondi vehicle. However, this court previously determined that the Allstate Insurance Company was not the insurer of Melissa Biondi under the policy it had issued to her father, William Biondi. The court also found, based upon the evidence adduced at the September 24, 2008 framed issue hearing, that there was no coverage under any policy issued to Melissa Biondi's uncle.
The petitioner's remaining claims for a stay of arbitration thus rest upon allegations that the Biondi vehicle was insured under a policy issued to Melissa Biondi directly, rather than coverage afforded her under a policy issued to her parents or her uncle. Such claims are, however, without any evidentiary support in the record as the only support therefor is Biondi's vague recollection that she was insured at the time of the accident under a policy purchased by her. Neither the identity of the issuer nor the details of any such policy was established. The record is, however, replete with evidence that all reasonable efforts to substantiate this vague recollection of coverage through the discovery and production of documentation tending to establish its existence have been unsuccessful due to the duration of time that has elapsed since the occurrence of the accident and the circumstances of the parties. Under these circumstances, the court concludes that the petitioner has failed to establish its entitlement to a permanent stay of the arbitration at issue herein. [*3]
In view of the foregoing, the petitioner's demand for a permanent stay of the uninsured motorist's arbitration demanded by respondent Reiffert is denied. Petitioner is, however, entitled to a temporary stay of such arbitration pending discovery. Accordingly, the petitioner shall conduct and conclude the limited discovery of respondent Reiffert referred to in its petition and supplemental petition within 120 days of the date of this order, after which time, the parties shall proceed to arbitration.
This decision and order constitutes the judgment of the court.
DATED: ________________________________________________
THOMAS F. WHELAN, J.S.C.
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.
