AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes

ANA KELLY, Plaintiff, v. MALONE FREIGHT LINES, INC., et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants. SIDNEY PHILLIPS, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

On or about September 27, 1982, a tractor trailer owned and operated by the defendants and third-party plaintiffs Malone Freight Lines, Inc. and Nile P. Testerman, respectively, collided with a motor vehicle operated by the third-party defendant. The plaintiff, who was, at the time, a passenger in the vehicle operated by the third-party defendant, submitted a claim for medical benefits against the third-party defendant's insurance carrier. No-fault benefits in the sum of $1,796.42 were paid by the carrier in connection with the plaintiff's claim, whereupon reimbursement was sought against Malone Freight Lines, Inc. The matter proceeded to arbitration as a result of which the carrier was awarded reimbursement in the sum of $898.50 based on a comparative negligence finding of 50% against Malone Freight Lines, Inc.

The relationship between the insured and the insurer as payor of first-party benefits is not that of indemnitor-indemnitee and the liability for such payments is not dependent upon or derivative from any liability of the insured (Baldwin v. Brooks, 83 A.D.2d 85, 88-89). Inasmuch as the third-party defendant was not a party to the arbitration proceeding, did not have a unity of interest with respect to the matter arbitrated and was not afforded a full and fair opportunity to contest that determination, the third-party defendant should not be bound by the arbitrator's ancillary finding regarding comparative negligence (see, Samhammer v. Home Mut. Ins. Co., 120 A.D.2d 59, 64; Compton v. D'Amore, 101 A.D.2d 800, 801).

In accordance with the well-settled tenet that the doctrine of collateral estoppel "`is essentially a rule of justice and fairness'" (Hinchey v. Sellers, 7 N.Y.2d 287, 294, quoting Commissioners of State Ins. Fund v. Low, 3 N.Y.2d 590, 595), the issues of apportionment of liability and contribution, if any, between the defendants and third-party plaintiffs and the third-party defendant were properly left for resolution by the trier of fact. Mollen, P.J., Thompson, Lawrence and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

KELLY v. MALONE FREIGHT LINES, INC
(Apr 11, 1988)