Majority
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Kavanagh, J.), entered July 22, 2002 in Ulster County, which granted petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR 7503 to permanently stay arbitration between the parties.
On September 5, 2000, Diana Talerico lost control of her car and struck a utility pole. The car’s impact moved the pole, causing its power lines to short out and rain sparks and hot pieces of wire down onto the 75-year-old respondent, who was standing in her garden along the roadway near her home. In attempting to run from this hazard, respondent fell and sustained injuries to her head and left knee. After settling for the $25,000 policy liihit with Talerico’s insurer, respondent sought additional compensation under the supplemental underinsured motorist provisions of an insurance policy issued by petitioner. Petitioner denied the claim, deeming respondent’s injuries not to have arisen out of the use, maintenance or operation of a motor vehicle. When respondent demanded arbitration, petitioner sought a permanent stay of arbitration. Supreme Court then found that respondent’s “tripping over her own two feet,” rather than Talerico’s car, was the cause of her injuries, and permanently stayed arbitration. We now reverse, holding that the operation of Talerico’s car was a proximate cause of respondent’s injuries.
Supreme Court decided that respondent’s injuries did not arise out of the use or operation of a motor vehicle because not all elements of the following test were satisfied: “ ‘1. The accident must have arisen out of the inherent nature of the automobile, as such; 2. The accident must have arisen within the natural territorial limits of an automobile, and the accidental use, loading, or unloading must not have terminated; 3. The automobile must not merely contribute to cause the condition which produces the injury, but must, itself, produce the injury’ ” (Matter of Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth. [Gholson], 71 AD2d 1004 , 1005, quoting Goetz v General Acc. Fire & Life Assur. Corp., 47 Misc 2d 67 , 69, affd 26 AD2d 635 , affd 19 NY2d 762 ). This Court, however, has characterized this test as merely requiring that the use or operation of a motor vehicle be a proximate cause of the injuries for which coverage is sought (see Sochinski v Bankers & Shippers Ins. Co., supra).
Upon our review of the record, we find that the impact of Talerico’s car with the utility pole was not a cause so remote in either time or space from respondent’s injuries “as to preclude recovery as a matter of law” (McMorrow v Trimper, 149 AD2d 971 , 972, affd 74 NY2d 830 ), and neither the shorting power lines nor respondent’s flight were so extraordinary or unforeseeable that they should “be viewed as superseding acts which, as a matter of law, break the causal link” (id. at 973; see Gordon v Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 NY2d 555 , 562; Cherny v Hurlburt, 150 AD2d 942 , 943-944). Nor was there any other record evi
Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, petition dismissed and arbitration temporarily stayed pending petitioner’s expeditious completion of examinations of respondent.
Cases cited
- In re the Arbitration between the County of Rockland & Primiano Construction Co. 51 NY2d 1 at 7 p. 741
- Sisters of Saint John the Baptist v. Phillips R. Geraghty Constructor, Inc. 67 NY2d 997 at 999 p. 741
- Federal Insurance v. Watnick 80 NY2d 539 at 545 p. 741
- Walton v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. 88 NY2d 211 at 215 p. 741
- Eagle Insurance v. Butts 269 AD2d 558 at 559 p. 741
- Goetz v. General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp. 47 Misc 2d 67 at 69 p. 741
- Goetz v. General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp. 19 NY2d 762 p. 741
- McMorrow v. Trimper 149 AD2d 971 at 972 p. 741
- McMorrow v. Trimper 74 NY2d 830 p. 741
- Gordon v. Eastern Railway Supply, Inc. 82 NY2d 555 at 562 p. 741
- Cherny v. Hurlburt 150 AD2d 942 at 943-944 p. 741
- Nassau Insurance v. Jiminez 116 Misc 2d 908 at 912 p. 742
- Feeley v. Citizens Telecommunications Co. of New York, Inc. 298 AD2d 745 at 745-746 p. 742
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Johnson 287 AD2d 640 at 641 p. 742
- Allstate Insurance v. Faulk 250 AD2d 674 p. 742