On October 30, 2018 a
Exhibit,Appendix
was filed
involving a dispute between
Paul John Carli,
and
Lucian Ronald,
Marieflore Poulard,
for Torts - Motor Vehicle
in the District Court of Kings County.
Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 09/24/2019 03:33 PM INDEX NO. 521852/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/24/2019
U.M. DECISION
TON ORUM T
drÃven
DOCKETNUMBER: U068-00003-19-00
PUBLICATION DATE: 0511312019
DOCKET MATERIALS / APPEARANCE INFORMATION
Company 1 APPLICATION, CONTENTIONS, EVIDENCE, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, CLAIM_REP IMNA LAPORTE
Company 2 APPLICATION, CONTENTIONS, EVIDENCE
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE / DEFERMENT FINDINGS
Summary: Affirmative Defense (Filed in Wrong Forum) raised by Company 2
Ruling Date: OSlO8l2Ol9 Arbitrator(s):
2000152294
Ruling: Denied for Company 2
Comments: MVAIC settled this as a UM claim, so this is the correct venue.
DECISION INFORMATION
:
Arbitrator#1 JEAN FAZZINO Date Closed 05/08/201I
Note: Above Arbitrator(s)have acknowledged the AF Neutrality Sfafetnent
Decision
After having read and reviewed
the briefs and exhibits submitted, the decision is as follows:
Company 2 DID NOT sustain its disclaimer of coverage.
Party Award Against Legal Fees Awarded Total
Cmp 1 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ o.oo
Cmp 2 $ 25,000.00 $ 0.00 $ 25,000.00
Please sendpayment to Remittance Address listed in frte Case Information
Secfion.
Explanation of Decision
MVAIC is seeking reimbursement for the UM settlement
they made on behalf of a bicyclist who was in a collision
with the Geico insured motor vehicle.
MVAIC is seeking reimbursement from the Bl portion of the Geico policy as Geico insures the involved motor vehicle. MVAIC contends
the prior UM AF
docket was withdrawn mistakenly by AF and MVAIC is now refiling as they have issued their payment. Geico contends
that MVAIC had withdrawn their
PIP docket and the prior UM docket was heard and a decision rendered. Geico also contends there would be no coverage under the UM portion of their
the evidence provided by both parties and questioning the MVAIC personal rep at the hearing, panelist has
policy for the injured bicyclist. ln reviewing
concluded with the bicyclist. MVAIC paid the PIP benefits to the claimant
that Geico did have coverage for the motor vehicle involved in the accident
bicyclist who had no other source of PIP benefits at the time the claim was reported
as the identity & coverage
for the involved motor vehicle was
unknown. MVAIC later filed a NY PIP Arbitration docket against Geico for NY priority of payments once the vehicle and carrier for the hit & run vehicle
they paid, so MVAIC withdrew the NY PIP AF docket. MVAIC had also filed a
were identified. Geico voluntarily reimbursed MVAIC for the PIP benefts
UM AF docket, but it was withdrawn for what MVAIC proved was an error. A withdrawal does not bar MVAIC from refiling the matter. MVAIC had
settled the personal injury action of the claimant based off the uninsured motorist claim being presented. MVAIC is an entity that provides 1st party
such as PIP and UM, for injuries sustained by certain claimants involved in a motorvehicle accidentwhen
benefits, that claimant has no othersource
availablefor 1st party benefits. ln this case, the ¡nsurance coverage and identity of the motor vehicle that collided
with the bicyclist was unknown at the
which put MVAIC on notice of the claim. As the injured claimant is a 3rd party to the Geico policy for the personal injury
time the claim was reported,
action, the Geico policy would provide Bl coverage to the claimant and not UM coverage
which is a 1 st party benefit. Geico owes reimbursement to
MVAIC under the Bl portion of the Geico policy.
lf you have any questionsabout this decision, pleasecall our Member Service Center at (866) 977-3434.
on:
Pr¡nted O5l2Ol2O'197.48 AM Decis¡onun¡nsured.jfiml - V 1.0 Page'1
of1
Document Filed Date
September 24, 2019
Case Filing Date
October 30, 2018
Category
Torts - Motor Vehicle
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 09/24/2019 03:33 PM INDEX NO. 521852/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/24/2019 U.M. DECISION TON ORUM T drÃven DOCKETNUMBER: U068-00003-19-00 PUBLICATION DATE: 0511312019 DOCKET MATERIALS / APPEARANCE INFORMATION Company 1 APPLICATION, CONTENTIONS, EVIDENCE, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, CLAIM_REP IMNA LAPORTE Company 2 APPLICATION, CONTENTIONS, EVIDENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE / DEFERMENT FINDINGS Summary: Affirmative Defense (Filed in Wrong Forum) raised by Company 2 Ruling Date: OSlO8l2Ol9 Arbitrator(s): 2000152294 Ruling: Denied for Company 2 Comments: MVAIC settled this as a UM claim, so this is the correct venue. DECISION INFORMATION : Arbitrator#1 JEAN FAZZINO Date Closed 05/08/201I Note: Above Arbitrator(s)have acknowledged the AF Neutrality Sfafetnent Decision After having read and reviewed the briefs and exhibits submitted, the decision is as follows: Company 2 DID NOT sustain its disclaimer of coverage. Party Award Against Legal Fees Awarded Total Cmp 1 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ o.oo Cmp 2 $ 25,000.00 $ 0.00 $ 25,000.00 Please sendpayment to Remittance Address listed in frte Case Information Secfion. Explanation of Decision MVAIC is seeking reimbursement for the UM settlement they made on behalf of a bicyclist who was in a collision with the Geico insured motor vehicle. MVAIC is seeking reimbursement from the Bl portion of the Geico policy as Geico insures the involved motor vehicle. MVAIC contends the prior UM AF docket was withdrawn mistakenly by AF and MVAIC is now refiling as they have issued their payment. Geico contends that MVAIC had withdrawn their PIP docket and the prior UM docket was heard and a decision rendered. Geico also contends there would be no coverage under the UM portion of their the evidence provided by both parties and questioning the MVAIC personal rep at the hearing, panelist has policy for the injured bicyclist. ln reviewing concluded with the bicyclist. MVAIC paid the PIP benefits to the claimant that Geico did have coverage for the motor vehicle involved in the accident bicyclist who had no other source of PIP benefits at the time the claim was reported as the identity & coverage for the involved motor vehicle was unknown. MVAIC later filed a NY PIP Arbitration docket against Geico for NY priority of payments once the vehicle and carrier for the hit & run vehicle they paid, so MVAIC withdrew the NY PIP AF docket. MVAIC had also filed a were identified. Geico voluntarily reimbursed MVAIC for the PIP benefts UM AF docket, but it was withdrawn for what MVAIC proved was an error. A withdrawal does not bar MVAIC from refiling the matter. MVAIC had settled the personal injury action of the claimant based off the uninsured motorist claim being presented. MVAIC is an entity that provides 1st party such as PIP and UM, for injuries sustained by certain claimants involved in a motorvehicle accidentwhen benefits, that claimant has no othersource availablefor 1st party benefits. ln this case, the ¡nsurance coverage and identity of the motor vehicle that collided with the bicyclist was unknown at the which put MVAIC on notice of the claim. As the injured claimant is a 3rd party to the Geico policy for the personal injury time the claim was reported, action, the Geico policy would provide Bl coverage to the claimant and not UM coverage which is a 1 st party benefit. Geico owes reimbursement to MVAIC under the Bl portion of the Geico policy. lf you have any questionsabout this decision, pleasecall our Member Service Center at (866) 977-3434. on: Pr¡nted O5l2Ol2O'197.48 AM Decis¡onun¡nsured.jfiml - V 1.0 Page'1 of1