| Matter of Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co. (New York State Ins.Fund) |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 09334 [56 AD3d 1111] |
| November 26, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of the Arbitration between Progressive NortheasternInsurance Company, as Subrogee of Julie J. Taddeo, Appellant, and New York State InsuranceFund, Respondent. |
—[*1] Gregory J. Allen, State Insurance Fund, Liverpool (Susan B. Marris of counsel), forrespondent.
Spain, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Egan, Jr., J.), entered February 6, 2008in Albany County, which denied petitioner's application pursuant to CPLR 7511 to vacate anarbitration award.
On July 12, 2004, Michael Chesebro was driving in the Village of Baldwinsville, OnondagaCounty when his vehicle was struck in the rear by Deborah Redden,[FN1] who was operating a 1999 Dodge minivan owned by her employer, Julie J. Taddeo, the owner ofAffordable Wheelchair Transportation. Chesebro was injured. Petitioner insured the minivan,which was registered as a [*2]passenger vehicle but bore liverylicense plates belonging to a commercial vehicle, a 1998 Dodge minivan also owned by Taddeo,which was insured by another carrier. It is uncontested that on this day Redden was using thepassenger vehicle bearing the livery plates to transport passengers for Taddeo's business.
After paying workers' compensation benefits to Chesebro, respondent filed an application (aPIP form) for arbitration with the New York Personal Injury Subrogation Arbitration Forum,seeking intercompany reimbursement of those paid benefits ($50,000) from petitioner pursuant tothe loss transfer provisions of Insurance Law § 5105 (a). Petitioner submitted a PIP formdenying the claim, asserting that its insured's passenger vehicle was her personal vehicle and notused primarily for the transportation of persons or property, as required by Insurance Law§ 5105 (a). After limited documentary evidence was submitted,[FN2] the arbitrator determined that respondent was entitled to reimbursement from petitioner.Petitioner then commenced this proceeding to vacate the arbitration award, which Supreme Courtdenied, and petitioner now appeals.
As relevant here, Insurance Law § 5105 (a) provides that an insurer liable for firstparty benefits or a workers' compensation carrier that pays benefits in lieu of first party benefits,which another insurer would otherwise be obligated to pay but for the No-Fault Law, has a rightto recover "only if at least one of the motor vehicles involved [weighs] more than [6,500 pounds]unloaded or is . . . used principally for the transportation of persons orproperty for hire" (emphasis added). The latter alternate requirements have beenrecognized to be "condition[s] precedent to ultimate recovery" (Matter of Progressive Cas.Ins. Co. v New York State Ins. Fund, 47 AD3d 633, 634 [2008]), and were added byamendment in 1977 "to limit the right of insurance carriers to recover first-party payments"(Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 132 AD2d 930, 931[1987], affd 71 NY2d 1013 [1988]). Respondent, as the applicant seekingreimbursement, bore the burden of proof to show entitlement to recover benefits paid[FN3] (see e.g. Matter of Hanover Ins. Co. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 226 AD2d 533,534 [1996]; Matter of Eveready Ins. Co. v Lumberman's Mut. Cas. Co., 201 AD2d 649,649 [1994]; Republic Claims Serv. Co. v Allstate Ins. Co., 160 AD2d 925, 926 [1990]).Insurance Law § 5105 (b) "provides that mandatory arbitration is the sole remedyregarding disputes between insurers over responsibility for payment of first-party benefits"(State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 150 AD2d 976, 977[*3][1989]).
Here, the record is devoid of evidence establishing the "principal use" of the passengervehicle insured by petitioner. No proof established when the livery plates were put on thepassenger vehicle, or if this plate-switching or use of the passenger vehicle to transport personsor property for hire occurred on any occasions other than the date of the accident, i.e., if it wasTaddeo's or Redden's practice to use this passenger vehicle "for hire." Petitioner did not submitan affidavit from its insured and none of the documentary evidence established that the "principaluse" of the vehicle it insured was other than its registered status as a passenger vehicle (compare Victoria Ins. Co. v Utica Mut. Ins.Co., 8 AD3d 87, 87 [2004]), i.e., the only evidence is that on the day of this accident,the passenger vehicle was being used "for hire," bearing livery plates from another vehicle.
Where, as here, the parties are obligated by statutory mandate to submit their dispute toarbitration (see Insurance Law § 5105 [b]), the arbitrator's determination is subjectto "closer judicial scrutiny" than with voluntary arbitration (Matter of Motor Veh. Acc.Indem. Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d 214, 223 [1996]). "To be upheld, an awardin a compulsory arbitration proceeding must have evidentiary support and cannot be arbitrary andcapricious" (id. [citations omitted]; see Matter of Utica Mut. Ins. Co. [Selective Ins. Co. of Am.], 27 AD3d990, 992 [2006]). On this record, there is no evidentiary support or rational basis for thearbitrator's determination that petitioner's insured passenger vehicle was used "principally. . . for hire" as required for respondent to obtain reimbursement under InsuranceLaw § 5105 (a) (see Matter of Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v New York State Ins.Fund, 47 AD3d at 634; Matter ofAllstate Ins. Co. v American Arbitration Assn., 26 AD3d 374, 374 [2006]; Matter of Kemper Ins. Co. v Westport Ins.Co., 9 AD3d 431, 432 [2004]). To the extent that the arbitrator granted respondent'sapplication based upon its finding that petitioner's insured passenger vehicle was "at the time"being used as a vehicle for hire, such a conclusion is inadequate to support the award and is "indisregard of the standard prescribed by the legislature" (Mount St. Mary's Hosp. of NiagaraFalls v Catherwood, 26 NY2d 493, 506 [1970]), i.e., that one of the vehicles be used"principally . . . for hire" (Insurance Law § 5105 [a] [emphasisadded]). The arbitration award should, therefore, be vacated.
Further, respondent relies heavily on petitioner's failure to produce evidence presumablywithin its possession or reach regarding the principal use of its insured's vehicle. However, therecord does not reflect that respondent availed itself of any of the avenues for discovery, such asrequesting a hearing at which witnesses could be called (see CPLR 7506 [c]), asking thearbitrator to issue subpoenas to procure documentary evidence (see CPLR 7505; seealso Alexander, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR7505, at 682-683 [1998]) or, as a last resort, applying to the court for an order directingdisclosure in aid of arbitration upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances (see CPLR3102 [c]; see also Siegel, NY Prac § 597, at 1052-1054 [4th ed]; Matter ofGoldsborough v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 217 AD2d 546, 547 [1995],appeal dismissed 86 NY2d 834 [1995]). While "[u]nder the CPLR, arbiters do not havethe power to direct the parties to engage in disclosure proceedings" (De Sapio vKohlmeyer, 35 NY2d 402, 406 [1974]; see Matter of Goldsborough v New York StateDept. of Correctional Servs., 217 AD2d at 547), avenues of disclosure were clearly available(see Siegel, NY Prac § 597, at 1052-1054 [4th ed]).
Mercure, J.P., Carpinello, Kane and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered the order is reversed, onthe law, without costs, petitioner's application granted and arbitration award vacated.
Footnote 1: Chesebro's vehicle then struckthe vehicle in front of him.
Footnote 2: Respondent's proof included theaccident report, Department of Motor Vehicles records, claim payment data sheets, copies of billspaid, and workers' compensation award decisions. Petitioner submitted the Department of MotorVehicles records, pictures of the vehicles and insurance documents.
Footnote 3: We do not agree with thearbitrator's conclusion that petitioner's position, that its insured vehicle was not used "principally. . . for hire," is an affirmative defense. Rather, the principal use of the vehicle is athreshold part of respondent's required showing, as the applicant seeking reimbursement underInsurance Law § 5105 (a) (see CPLR 3018; cf. Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v City of Yonkers, 21AD3d 1110, 1111 [2005]).