Hereford Ins. Co. v. Am. Transit Ins. Co.

174 A.D.3d 805

102 N.Y.S.3d 873 (Mem)

In the Matter of HEREFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, as subrogee of Samuel Mensah, Respondent,

v.AMERICAN TRANSIT INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant.

2018–04730

Index No. 714309/17

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Argued—April 26, 2019

July 24, 2019

Law Offices of Richard A. Reinstein, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Joshua M. Goldberg of counsel), for appellant.

Goldberg, Miller & Rubin, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Harlan R. Schreiber and Timothy R. Bishop of counsel), for respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, BETSY BARROS, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On May 15, 2015, a vehicle insured by Hereford Insurance Company (hereinafter Hereford) and owned by Samuel Mensah, and a vehicle insured by American Transit Insurance Company (hereinafter ATIC), were involved in a motor vehicle accident. As a result of the accident, Hereford paid a total of $70,027.94 in benefits to the injured party.

Thereafter, Hereford sought to recover the sum of $50,000 from ATIC in compulsory arbitration pursuant to Insurance Law § 5105. Of the $50,000 sought by Hereford, ATIC "disput[ed] the total of $16,551.89 over paid for services rendered in New Jersey." The arbitrator determined that ATIC's insured was 100% at fault in the happening of the accident. The arbitrator also determined that Hereford had proved all damages and awarded Hereford the sum of $50,000.

On October 16, 2017, Hereford, as subrogee of Mensah, commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to confirm the arbitration award. ATIC opposed the petition, and requested that the award be vacated. In an order entered March 26, 2018, the Supreme Court granted the petition to confirm the award, determining that, "based upon the parties' submissions, there [was] no basis to vacate the arbitrator's award." The court also noted that "[t]he fee schedule defenses were raised by [ATIC] in full detail in its contentions and fully considered by the arbitrator." ATIC appeals.

"While judicial review of arbitration awards is limited to the grounds set forth in CPLR 7511, an award that is the product of compulsory arbitration, such as the one at issue in this case, must satisfy an additional layer of judicial scrutiny—it must have evidentiary support and cannot be arbitrary and capricious" ( Matter of Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y. , 144 A.D.3d 1160, 1160–1161, 42 N.Y.S.3d 269 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. , 89 N.Y.2d 214, 652 N.Y.S.2d 584, 674 N.E.2d 1349 ; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. Travelers Cos., Inc. , 159 A.D.3d 982, 74 N.Y.S.3d 573 ). "Moreover, with respect to determinations of law, the applicable standard in mandatory no-fault arbitrations is whether ‘any reasonable hypothesis can be found to support the questioned interpretation’ " ( Matter of Fiduciary Ins. Co. v. American...