Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000

Friedman v. Allstate Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided January 31, 2000

268 A.D.2d 558; 703 N.Y.S.2d 198; 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 931

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Soshnick v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v. Arciello (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Panther (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Metlife Auto & Home v. Zampino (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance v. Ambeau (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Lucano (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Integon Insurance v. Battaglia (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—In an action to recover underinsured motorist benefits pursuant to an automobile insurance policy, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCaffrey, J.), dated January 8, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is undisputed that the plaintiffs failed to obtain the written consent of their insurance carrier, the defendant, Allstate Insurance Company (hereinafter Allstate), before settling the underlying negligence action with the tortfeasor, and that such consent was required by the underinsurance motorist coverage provisions of the Allstate policy. Furthermore, in executing a release in favor of the tortfeasor, the plaintiffs failed to preserve Allstate’s subrogation rights. Under the circumstances, the plaintiffs are precluded from asserting a claim for benefits under the underinsurance motorist provisions of the policy (see, Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v Longo Prod., 247 AD2d 497; Matter of State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v Zyburo, 215 AD2d 566).

*559The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or have been rendered academic in light of our determination. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.