Steward v Brooklyn Pier 1 Residential Owner, LP
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Whether an insurer that paid supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorists (SUM) benefits may intervene post-limitations to assert a subrogation claim in the insured’s pending personal injury action, and whether the claim is timely under the relation-back doctrine in the Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR).
The Supreme Court, Kings County denied Utica Mutual Assurance Company’s motion for leave to intervene to assert a subrogation claim.
The denial of Utica’s motion to intervene.
The subrogation claim relates back to the plaintiff’s personal injury claims under CPLR 203(c) [relation-back doctrine allowing interposition of otherwise time-barred claims arising from the same transaction or occurrence when the defendant had notice and no prejudice], intervention is proper under CPLR 1012(a)(2) [intervention as of right when representation may be inadequate and the person may be bound by the judgment] and CPLR 1013 [permissive intervention where there is a common question of law or fact; court must consider delay or prejudice], and Utica cured its initial omission of a proposed pleading by submitting one in reply consistent with CPLR 1014 [motion to intervene must include a proposed pleading] and CPLR 2001 [court may disregard or cure nonprejudicial defects].
Background
The plaintiff, a construction worker, was struck by a vehicle at a construction site and sued various property owners and project entities in 2019 for personal injuries. In 2020, after arbitration, he was awarded $775,000 in supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorists (SUM) benefits from Utica Mutual Assurance Company under his employer’s policy. In April 2022, Utica moved to intervene in the personal injury action to assert a subrogation claim seeking reimbursement of the SUM benefits it paid. The Supreme Court denied the motion, and Utica appealed.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Kings County (Landicino, J.), denied Utica’s motion for leave to intervene. Although the order did not specify detailed reasons, respondents had argued the subrogation claim was time-barred and that Utica failed to annex a proposed complaint with its moving papers.
Appellate Division Reversal
Reversing and granting intervention, the court held Utica’s subrogation claim is timely under CPLR 203(c) [relation-back doctrine allowing interposition of otherwise time-barred claims arising from the same transaction or occurrence when the defendant had notice and no prejudice] because it arises from the same accident and liability questions as the plaintiff’s suit, thereby putting defendants on notice and causing no prejudice. The court also determined intervention was warranted under CPLR 1012(a)(2) [intervention as of right when representation may be inadequate and the person may be bound by the judgment] and CPLR 1013 [permissive intervention where there is a common question of law or fact; court must consider delay or prejudice], since Utica’s interests were not represented yet it would be bound by the judgment, and intervention would not delay the case or require additional discovery. Although Utica initially failed to attach a proposed complaint, it cured that defect by annexing one in reply, which the court allowed under CPLR 1014 [motion to intervene must include a proposed pleading] and CPLR 2001 [court may disregard or cure nonprejudicial defects].
Legal Significance
The decision confirms that an insurer paying SUM benefits may intervene to assert subrogation in a pending personal injury action even after the apparent statute of limitations, so long as the claim relates back to the insured’s complaint and does not prejudice defendants. It also underscores courts’ flexibility under CPLR 2001 to excuse or cure technical defects like failure to attach a proposed pleading, and clarifies that insurers may intervene as of right when their interests are inadequately represented and they will be bound by the judgment.
Insurers that pay supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorists (SUM) benefits can intervene to assert subrogation in the insured’s ongoing personal injury case via relation back, provided defendants had notice and no prejudice, and technical motion defects can be cured without denying intervention.