| Matter of Government Gen. Empls. Ins. Co. v Constantino |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 02589 [49 AD3d 736] |
| March 18, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Government General Employees InsuranceCompany, Respondent, v Pearson Constantino, Appellant. |
—[*1] Darienzo & Lauzon, Garden City, N.Y. (Montfort, Healy, McGuire & Salley [Donald S.Neumann, Jr.] of counsel), for respondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of a claim foruninsured motorist benefits, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County(La Marca, J.), dated March 30, 2007, which granted the petition.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On June 29, 2006 the appellant, Pearson Constantino was struck by a hit-and-run driver as hewas riding a bicycle, and allegedly sustained injuries. He subsequently sought benefits under the"supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorist" (hereinafter SUM) provisions of the "FamilyAutomobile Insurance Policy" (hereinafter the policy) issued by the Government EmployeesInsurance Company, sued herein as Government General Employees Insurance Company(hereinafter GEICO), to his fiancée nonparty Julia K. Wrona. When GEICO deniedpayment, Constantino demanded arbitration of the claim. GEICO then commenced thisproceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 seeking a permanent stay of arbitration on the groundthat Constantino was not a "resident relative" under the policy and, therefore, was not entitled toSUM benefits for his injuries. Constantino countered that he was entitled to SUM benefitsbecause, when Wrona purchased the policy from GEICO, she specifically sought coverage forhim that was equal to her own, and because a page on a website maintained by GEICO listedConstantino as a "driver[ ] covered" and [*2]an "individualcovered" under the policy. The Supreme Court granted GEICO's petition for a permanent stay ofarbitration, concluding that Constantino was not entitled to benefits because he was neitherWrona's spouse nor related to her. We affirm.
The policy unambiguously listed only Wrona as the named insured. Insofar as relevant here,the policy's SUM coverage provided benefits only to Wrona, her spouse, and their relatives,provided that they were residents of Wrona's household. Constantino is not mentioned in thepolicy, and it is undisputed that he was neither married to nor related to Wrona when he wasinjured. Thus, Constantino was not entitled to SUM benefits under the terms of the policy.
Constantino's contention that he was nonetheless entitled to SUM benefits because a webpage maintained by GEICO listed him as an "individual covered" or as a "driver[ ] covered"under the policy is without merit. The policy provides that its "terms and provisions. . . cannot be . . . changed, except by an endorsement issued to form apart of this policy." The web page does not constitute such an endorsement. In any event,inasmuch as the language of the policy admits of no ambiguity, resort may not be had to theextrinsic web page which is not part of the policy (see Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Russell, 39 AD3d759, 761 [2007]; cf. Kennedy v Valley Forge Ins. Co., 84 NY2d 963 [1994],affg 203 AD2d 930 [1994]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly found thatConstantino was not entitled to SUM benefits under the policy.
Constantino's remaining contention is without merit. Fisher, J.P., Dillon, McCarthy andBelen, JJ., concur.