Key Takeaway
Geico attempts to recover $25,000 from Global Liberty after paying uninsured motorist claim, despite failing to challenge coverage disclaimer in arbitration.
This article is part of our ongoing coverage coverage, with 150 published articles analyzing coverage issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
Geico Indem. Ins. Co., Matter of, v Global Liberty Ins. Co. of NY, 2016 NY Slip Op 50595(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2016)
Geico Indemnity Insurance Company (Geico) commenced this proceeding, pursuant to CPLR 7510, to confirm an arbitration award rendered against Global Liberty Insurance Company of NY (Global) in the principal amount of $25,000. Respondent filed a cross petition to vacate the award. The record indicates that, on August 9, 2011, Michael McCrae, a pedestrian, slipped and fell in a parking lot and was subsequently struck by a motor vehicle which left the scene and which was allegedly owned by Global’s insured. On February 6, 2013, Geico, pursuant to an agreement between the parties providing for their participation in uninsured motorist arbitration, commenced inter-company arbitration against Global to recover $25,000 which Geico had paid to McCrae on his uninsured motorist claim. Global contended that it had disclaimed coverage on August 31, 2012, based upon its insured’s noncooperation and late notice. Following an arbitration hearing on April 12, 2013, the arbitrator ruled in favor of Geico, finding that Global had not sustained its disclaimer of coverage, and issued an award to Geico in the principal sum of $25,000. In an order entered July 2, 2014, from which Global appeals, the Civil Court granted Geico’s petition to confirm the arbitration award and denied Global’s cross petition to vacate the arbitration award.”
(The order was affirmed)
What bothers me about this case is that GEICO was given notice of a UM claim due to GLOBAL’s disclaimer. GEICO failed to stay the arbitration pending a framed issue hearing on the validity of Global’s non-cooperation disclaimer, and invariably admitted lack of coverage on Global’s part and picked up the UM claim.
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
Now, GEICO wants a second bite at the apple, subrogates against Global on the UM and the arbitrator ruled on the merits of the disclaimer. I believe that by not timely staying the UM claim, GEICO cannot litigate any coverage issues including the validity of what would have been at a FIH the Additional Respondent’s disclaimer. Very poor decision and sneaky on GEICO’s part.
Related Articles
- Causation – Be aware of seeking a trial de novo after a master arbitrator affirms an award
- Understanding collateral estoppel in New York no-fault insurance cases
- When proof is insufficient to establish an intentional accident
- Business record requirements for proving motor vehicle accidents
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Related: What “de novo” means in New York — trial de novo and de novo review, explained.
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.
About This Topic
Insurance Coverage Issues in New York
Coverage disputes determine whether an insurance policy provides benefits for a particular claim. In the no-fault context, coverage questions involve policy inception, named insured status, vehicle registration requirements, priority of coverage among multiple insurers, and the applicability of exclusions. These articles examine how New York courts resolve coverage disputes, the burden of proof on coverage defenses, and the interplay between regulatory requirements and policy language.
150 published articles in Coverage
Keep Reading
More Coverage Analysis
IME no-show is a policy defense triggering the hourly attorney fee provision
Learn how IME no-show defenses trigger hourly attorney fee provisions in NY no-fault insurance. Court rules failure to attend IME is policy defense.
May 22, 2021
Contractual deemer
New York courts examine when out-of-state insurers can avoid no-fault coverage obligations through contractual deemer provisions and policy language analysis.
Apr 24, 2021
MVAIC should have sought the information through verification
MVAIC case establishes insurers must seek coverage information through verification before challenging qualified person status in NY no-fault claims
Feb 3, 2014
Guidance on how to defeat a lack of causation motion regarding injury to a knee
Malloy reinstated a right-knee injury claim based on supported medical opinions. Read the 2010 causation ruling and its limits for no-fault practice.
Dec 22, 2010
No need to file cancellation with DMV?
Global Liberty v Ho Suk Shin distinguishes replacing an insured vehicle from terminating a policy. Jason’s original 2020 commentary is preserved.
May 9, 2020
Cancellation of insurance policy
Court ruling highlights insurance companies' burden to prove proper DMV notification when canceling policies, affecting no-fault insurance defenses in New York.
Aug 24, 2015Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a coverage matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
