—[*1] The Barnes Firm, P.C., Rochester (Richard P. Amico of counsel), for respondent-appellant.

Sugarman Law Firm, LLP, Syracuse (Timothy J. Perry of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Cayuga County (Peter E. Corning, A.J.), entered March 8, 2006 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75. The order granted the petition and permanently stayed arbitration.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: On July 29, 2003, respondent was seriously injured when the vehicle in which he was a passenger struck another vehicle. Respondent filed claims with the insurance companies for both vehicles. The insurance company for the vehicle in which respondent was a passenger denied his claim on the ground that the policy had expired at the time of the accident and thus the vehicle was not insured. The insurance company for the second vehicle denied respondent’s claim on the ground that there was no liability for the accident on the part of its insured. The Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation denied respondent’s subsequent application for benefits on the ground that respondent was covered by an insurance policy issued by petitioner, Progressive Northeastern Insurance Company (Progressive), to respondent’s parents.

On March 16, 2004, respondent filed both a claim for no-fault benefits and an uninsured motorist (UM) claim with Progressive. Progressive paid benefits on the no-fault claim but disclaimed coverage on the UM claim based on respondent’s failure to give Progressive notice and proof of the claim as soon as practicable. When respondent informed Progressive of his intent to arbitrate his UM claim, Progressive commenced this CPLR article 75 proceeding seeking to stay arbitration. We conclude that Supreme Court properly granted the petition.

Contrary to the contention of respondent, the fact that Progressive paid no-fault benefits does not establish that Progressive waived the right to disclaim coverage on the UM claim. “Waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right” (Enright v Nationwide Ins. [appeal No. 2], 295 AD2d 980, 981 [2002]; see Gilbert Frank Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., 70 NY2d 966, 968 [1988]). [*2]Here, there is no evidence in the record establishing Progressive’s intentional relinquishment of the notice requirements (see generally Albert J. Schiff Assoc. v Flack, 51 NY2d 692, 698 [1980]).

Contrary to respondent’s further contention, Progressive was not required to show prejudice before disclaiming coverage on the UM claim. Traditionally, the rule in New York has been that “an insured’s failure to provide timely notice of an accident [or claim] relieves the carrier of its obligation to perform regardless of whether it can demonstrate prejudice” (Rekemeyer v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 4 NY3d 468, 474-475 [2005]). Although the Court of Appeals has declined to apply the traditional rule in cases where the insurer has received late notice of a legal action but otherwise received timely notice of the accident or claim (see e.g. Rekemeyer, 4 NY3d at 475-476; Matter of Brandon [Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.], 97 NY2d 491, 497-498 [2002]), here there was no timely notice of the accident or claim (see Argo Corp. v Greater N.Y. Mut. Ins. Co., 4 NY3d 332, 339-340 [2005]; Matter of Assurance Co. of Am. v Delgrosso, 38 AD3d 649, 650 [2007]; Gershow Recycling Corp. v Transcontinental Ins. Co., 22 AD3d 460, 461 [2005]; Brownstone Partners/AF&F, LLC v A. Aleem Constr., Inc., 18 AD3d 204 [2005]). Thus, Progressive was entitled to disclaim coverage on the UM claim based on respondent’s seven-month delay in notifying Progressive of the accident or claim (see e.g. Gershow Recycling Corp., 22 AD3d at 461).

In light of our determination, we see no need to reach Progressive’s remaining contention. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Gorski, Smith, Lunn and Pine, JJ.

[*1]

Fourth Department, June 8, 2007

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Sugarman Law Firm, LLP, Syracuse (Timothy J. Perry of counsel), for appellant.

Knoer, Crawford & Bender, LLP, Buffalo (Paul A. Bender of counsel), for respondents.

{**43 AD3d at 183} OPINION OF THE COURT

Peradotto, J.

Sheila M. Meegan (plaintiff) was injured in a motor vehicle accident when the vehicle that she was driving was rear-ended by another vehicle. She thereafter settled with the driver of the other vehicle for $25,000, the maximum amount of coverage under his insurance policy. Plaintiffs then commenced this action seeking supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorist (SUM) coverage under the policy issued by defendant to plaintiff Michael T. Meegan, plaintiff’s husband. The case proceeded to trial, and Supreme Court granted plaintiffs’ cross motion for a directed verdict on, inter alia, the issue whether plaintiff sustained a serious injury. The jury thereafter returned a verdict in plaintiffs’ favor, and defendant moved for, inter alia, an order reducing the verdict “to conform to the coverage for this claim”{**43 AD3d at 184} or an order setting aside the verdict and granting a new trial on all issues. The court denied defendant’s posttrial motion, and judgment was entered for plaintiffs in the amount of $479,091.85.

For the reasons that follow, we agree with defendant that a new trial should be granted on the issue whether plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) because the court erred in granting that part of plaintiffs’ cross motion for a directed verdict on that issue. That issue involved questions of fact for the jury, and the court therefore erred in concluding that plaintiff’s shoulder injury met the serious injury threshold as a matter of law. [*2]

We address first the judgment in appeal No. 2. Plaintiffs contend that they were not required to establish that plaintiff sustained a serious injury in the context of this case. That contention is inconsistent with their position at trial and is raised for the first time on appeal. Nevertheless, we address plaintiffs’ contention in view of our conclusion that a new trial on the issue of serious injury should be granted. Plaintiffs’ contention involves an issue of first impression in this Department and, although the Second Department addressed the issue in Raffellini v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (36 AD3d 92 [2006]), we disagree with its resolution of the issue.

The SUM endorsement to defendant’s policy provides in relevant part that defendant agrees to “pay all sums that the insured . . . shall be legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle because of bodily injury sustained by the insured, caused by an accident . . . subject to the Exclusions, Conditions, Limits and other provisions of [the] SUM endorsement.” Pursuant to an exclusion in the SUM endorsement, SUM coverage does not apply “for non-economic loss[ ] resulting from bodily injury . . . unless the insured has sustained serious injury as defined in section 5102 (d) of the New York Insurance Law.” Thus, under the terms of the policy, plaintiffs were required to establish that plaintiff sustained a serious injury.

In Raffellini, the Second Department held that the provision in the insurance contract imposing a serious injury threshold requirement in the underinsurance context should not be given effect (see id. at 105). Pursuant to the reasoning of the Second Department,

“the Legislature made a point of imposing the serious{**43 AD3d at 185} injury threshold requirement in [Insurance Law § ] 3420 (f) (1), which governs mandatory, uninsured motorists coverage, . . . [but] omitted that threshold from the ensuing section, section 3420 (f) (2), which governs the optional coverage an insured may, for an additional premium, purchase from his or her insurer” (id. at 103).

Thus, reasoned the Second Department, the omission of the serious injury threshold requirement in section 3420 (f) (2) renders “legally irrelevant” a defense of lack of serious injury (id. at 103), and the regulations imposing such a requirement “would appear unauthorized” (id. at 104). The Court in Raffellini went on to note that Insurance Law § 3420 (a) provides for certain mandatory policy provisions that are to be “equally or more favorable to the insured” and that a provision in a contract imposing a serious injury threshold requirement is less favorable to an insured than section 3420 (f) (2) and thus should not be enforced (see id. at 105).

We disagree with the decision of the Second Department in Raffellini and conclude that plaintiffs were required to establish that plaintiff sustained a serious injury in order to recover under the policy. The language of the SUM endorsement in this case comes directly from the insurance regulations containing the requirements for SUM endorsements, which include the exclusion that SUM coverage does not apply to noneconomic damages unless the insured has sustained a “serious injury” as defined in Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see 11 NYCRR 60-2.3 [f]).

It is well established that “[r]esponsibility for administering the Insurance Law rests with the Superintendent of Insurance . . . , who has ‘broad power to interpret, clarify, and implement the legislative policy’ ” (Matter of Medical Socy. of State of N.Y. v Serio, 100 NY2d 854, 863-864 [2003]; see Insurance Law § 301). Pursuant to Insurance Law § 301, the Superintendent of Insurance has the power to promulgate regulations, and those regulations are valid as long as they are not inconsistent with a specific statutory provision (see Medical Socy. of State of N.Y., 100 NY2d at 864; see also State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Cos. v Brooks, 78 AD2d 456, 458 [1981], appeal dismissed 54 NY2d 753 [1981]).

In our view, the regulations requiring a person to establish that he or she sustained a serious injury in order to be entitled to SUM coverage are not inconsistent with section 3420 (f) (2) or any other provision of the Insurance Law. In the construction{**43 AD3d at 186} of a statute, the primary consideration for the court is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature (see McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 92 [a]; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Libow, 106 AD2d 110, 114 [1984], affd for reasons stated 65 NY2d 807 [1985]). Statutes are to “be given a reasonable construction, it being presumed that a reasonable result was intended by the Legislature” (Statutes § 143).

Insurance Law § 3420 (f) (2) does not explicitly dispense with the serious injury threshold requirement and, because “the statute is silent [on the issue], the regulations [implementing the statute and imposing that requirement] in no way conflict with the statute” (Medical Socy. of State of N.Y., 100 NY2d at 871). We further conclude that the regulations do not impose a requirement that is less favorable to the insured than section 3420 (f) (2). The regulations simply impose the same legal requirement that an injured plaintiff would have against an adequately insured driver and an uninsured driver (see § 3420 [f] [1]; § 5104). The regulations were not promulgated “on a blank slate without any legislative guidance, nor did [they] effectuate a profound change in . . . policy” (Medical Socy. of State of N.Y., 100 NY2d at 865). The obvious purpose of section 3420 (f) (2) and its corresponding regulations is to permit drivers to protect themselves under the same terms as they protect others injured as a result of their negligence. It was not the intent of the Legislature to provide a person injured by an underinsured driver with greater rights or a lesser burden of proof than an injured person otherwise would have against an adequately insured driver, when both actions arise from the same incident. To so conclude would be unreasonable and contrary to the purpose and intent of the No-Fault Law. We further note that SUM coverage is optional, and that an insured elects to obtain such coverage upon the specified terms and conditions of the coverage.

In sum, we conclude that, because the conditional and exclusionary language of the policy is not explicitly prohibited by the statute, and because the regulations implementing such policy provisions are authorized and not inconsistent with the language or purpose of Insurance Law § 3420 (f) (2) or any other provision of the Insurance Law, the policy provision containing the serious injury threshold requirement exclusion is valid and enforceable.

We further conclude that defendant is entitled to a new trial on damages. Contrary to the contentions of plaintiffs, absent{**43 AD3d at 187} evidence that defendant acted in bad faith, their underinsurance claim is limited to the amount of coverage provided in the policy, which is $250,000, less an offset of $25,000 for the payment made on behalf of the other driver (see Mendoza v Allstate Ins. Co., 13 AD3d 594, 595 [2004]). We also add that plaintiff’s recovery of past and future medical expenses and lost wages may be limited by exclusions, conditions, limits, or other provisions of the policy. Defendant’s remaining contentions with respect to the judgment in appeal No. 2 are moot in light of our determination.

We conclude with respect to the order in appeal No. 1 that the court abused its discretion in granting plaintiffs’ motion in limine in part by precluding an expert for defendant from testifying with respect to an entry in the medical records of one of plaintiff’s physicians. In support of their motion, plaintiffs submitted an affidavit of that physician’s office manager in which she stated that plaintiff did not become a patient of the physician until approximately one month after the date of the entry. In her affidavit, however, the office manager did not establish that she had personal knowledge of the entry, nor did she establish that she was responsible for making such entries. Even if she had made such a showing, the certified medical records were admissible in evidence pursuant to CPLR 4518 (c) and constituted prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein (see generally LaDuke v State Farm Ins. Co., 158 AD2d 137 [1990]). Plaintiffs’ contention with respect to the accuracy of the entry in those medical records goes to the weight to be given to the medical records, not their admissibility (see generally National Fuel Gas Supply [*3]Corp. v Goodremote, 13 AD3d 1134, 1135 [2004]).

Accordingly, we conclude that the judgment in appeal No. 2 should be reversed, plaintiffs’ cross motion for a directed verdict denied in part, defendant’s posttrial motion granted in part, the verdict set aside and a new trial granted on the issues of serious injury and damages. We further conclude that the order in appeal No. 1 should be reversed insofar as appealed from and plaintiffs’ motion in limine denied in its entirety.

Centra, J. (dissenting).

I

For the reasons that follow, we respectfully dissent in appeal No. 1 and dissent in part in appeal No. 2 because, in our view,{**43 AD3d at 188} defendant is not entitled to a new trial on the issues of serious injury and damages. With respect to appeal No. 2, we agree with the majority that plaintiffs’ underinsurance claim is limited to $225,000, and we therefore would modify the judgment in appeal No. 2 accordingly.

II

Sheila M. Meegan (plaintiff) sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident when the vehicle she was driving was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by Kevin T. Berry. Plaintiff settled with Berry’s insurance company for $25,000, the maximum amount of coverage under Berry’s policy. Plaintiffs thereafter commenced this action seeking supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorists (SUM) coverage from defendant, who issued a policy to plaintiff Michael T. Meegan, plaintiff’s husband. Supreme Court granted plaintiffs’ motion in limine in part and precluded certain testimony of defendant’s expert (appeal No. 1). The action proceeded to trial, and a jury awarded plaintiff $26,250 for past lost wages, approximately $21,500 for past medical expenses, $100,000 for past pain and suffering, $50,000 for future lost wages, $65,000 for future medical expenses, and $200,000 for future pain and suffering. The jury also awarded Michael Meegan $15,000 on his derivative claim. The court granted judgment on the verdict (appeal No. 2) and denied defendant’s posttrial motion for an order reducing the verdict, vacating the award for past lost wages and medical expenses, or setting aside the verdict and granting a new trial on all issues. Defendant now appeals.

III

As did the majority, we will first address the issue of serious injury. The majority concludes that the court erred in granting that part of plaintiffs’ cross motion for a directed verdict on the issue of serious injury and that defendant therefore is entitled to a new trial on that issue. The majority further rejects the contention of plaintiffs that they are not required to establish that plaintiff sustained a serious injury. We agree with the decision of the Second Department in Raffellini v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (36 AD3d 92 [2006]) and conclude that plaintiffs are not required to establish that plaintiff sustained a serious injury.

To begin, we note that there is no statutory requirement that a plaintiff who asserts a breach of contract claim for SUM{**43 AD3d at 189} benefits must establish that he or she sustained a serious injury. Insurance Law § 5104 (a) provides that, “in any action by or on behalf of a covered person against another covered person for personal injuries arising out of negligence in the use or operation of a motor vehicle in this state, there shall be no right of recovery for non-economic [*4]loss, except in the case of a serious injury, or for basic economic loss.” That statute is not applicable to the facts of this case because, although plaintiff is a “covered person,” defendant is not. Plaintiffs’ claim for SUM benefits is governed by Insurance Law § 3420 (f) (2) (A), which provides that a policy of insurance shall, at the option of the insured, provide SUM insurance for bodily injury. That section does not require a plaintiff asserting a breach of contract claim for SUM benefits to establish that he or she sustained a serious injury. Unlike section 3420 (f) (2) (A), however, Insurance Law § 3420 (f) (1) requires a plaintiff seeking uninsured motorist (UM) benefits to establish that he or she sustained a serious injury.

There is therefore no statutory provision to support defendant’s contention that plaintiffs must establish that plaintiff sustained a serious injury. Instead, defendant relies on the insurance policy, which provides that there is no SUM coverage “for non-economic loss[ ] resulting from bodily injury . . . unless the insured has sustained serious injury as defined in section 5102 (d) of the New York Insurance Law.” That provision is set forth in the insurance regulations containing the requirements for SUM endorsements (see 11 NYCRR 60-2.3 [f]).^[FN*] The majority concludes that those regulations are not inconsistent with section 3420 (f) (2) and should therefore be upheld. We disagree with that conclusion.

As the majority notes, the Superintendent of Insurance (Superintendent) “has ‘broad power to interpret, clarify, and implement the legislative policy’ ” (Matter of Medical Socy. of State of N.Y. v Serio, 100 NY2d 854, 863-864 [2003]). Where, however, ” ‘the question is one of pure statutory reading and analysis, dependent only on accurate apprehension of legislative intent, there is little basis to rely on any special competence or expertise of the administrative agency’ ” (Matter of Gruber [New York City Dept. of Personnel—Sweeney], 89 NY2d 225, 231 [1996]; see Matter of Belmonte v Snashall, 2 NY3d 560, 566 [2004]). In that situation, “the judiciary need not accord any deference to the{**43 AD3d at 190} agency’s determination, and is free to ascertain the proper interpretation from the statutory language and legislative intent” (Gruber, 89 NY2d at 231-232).

In our view, no deference should be accorded to the Superintendent’s interpretation of the statute, and the regulations are not rational (cf. Belmonte, 2 NY3d at 565-567; Medical Socy. of State of N.Y., 100 NY2d at 867, 871-872). Interpretation of a statute begins with an examination of its plain meaning (see Bluebird Partners v First Fid. Bank, 97 NY2d 456, 460-461 [2002]). In addition,

” ‘[a] statute or legislative act is to be construed as a whole, and . . . all parts of an act are to be read and construed together to determine the legislative intent . . . Not only are different parts of the same act interpreted together, but different acts which are in pari materia are to be construed each in the light of the other’ ” (Matter of Cook v Carmen S. Pariso, Inc., 287 AD2d 208, 215 [2001]; see McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 97).

As noted above, Insurance Law § 3420 (f) (2) (A), governing SUM benefits, does not require any showing of a serious injury, yet section 3420 (f) (1), governing UM benefits, and section 5104 (a), governing negligence actions, do require such a showing. If the Legislature had wished to include a serious injury threshold requirement for SUM benefits, it could easily have done so (see generally Bluebird Partners, 97 NY2d at 461). There was no reason for the Legislature to include such a requirement, however, because a plaintiff seeking to recover SUM benefits from his or her insurer must already have made a showing of serious injury in an action against the tortfeasor. Section 3420 (f) (2) (A) provides that, “[a]s a condition precedent to the [*5]obligation of the insurer to pay under the [SUM] insurance coverage, the limits of liability of all bodily injury liability bonds or insurance policies applicable at the time of the accident shall be exhausted by payment of judgments or settlements” (see Matter of Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v Mancuso, 93 NY2d 487, 493 [1999]). Thus, plaintiffs are not entitled to recover SUM benefits against their insurer unless and until they have collected the limits of the policy from the tortfeasor, and plaintiffs must meet the serious injury threshold requirement in that action against the tortfeasor. It would make no sense to require a plaintiff to make a showing of a serious injury in a{**43 AD3d at 191} tort action against a tortfeasor, and then to require the plaintiff to make that same showing again in a breach of contract action for SUM benefits against his or her insurer. Nor is it of any import whether the action against the tortfeasor ended in a settlement or proceeded to trial, where either the court or the jury would make an explicit finding of serious injury. The serious injury requirement is applicable in any of those scenarios. If a plaintiff does not have a serious injury, there is no reason for the tortfeasor to pay the limits of his or her policy.

We agree with the statement of the Second Department in Raffellini that the regulations and the provision in the insurance policy impose a requirement that “is less favorable to the insured than [Insurance Law §] 3420 (f) (2) and should not be given effect” (36 AD3d at 105). In concluding otherwise, the majority states that “[i]t was not the intent of the Legislature to provide a person injured by an underinsured driver with greater rights or a lesser burden of proof than an injured person otherwise would have against an adequately insured driver, when both actions arise from the same incident.” In our view, the majority’s statement is flawed because a person injured by an underinsured driver already is required to meet the serious injury threshold in an action against the tortfeasor. Therefore, by omitting that threshold requirement for a SUM claim, the Legislature is not affording the person injured by an underinsured driver any greater rights or any lesser burden of proof. Regardless of whether a person is injured by an underinsured driver or an adequately insured driver, the person must meet the serious injury threshold in an action against the driver, and an action against the underinsured driver is a condition precedent to any claim for SUM benefits. In upholding the regulations, the majority actually is imposing a greater burden of proof on the person injured by an underinsured driver than a person injured by an adequately insured driver. A person injured by an underinsured driver would first have to establish that he or she sustained a serious injury in order to obtain a judgment or settlement from the tortfeasor and would have to make that showing again in the breach of contract action against his or her insurer for SUM benefits.

In sum, we conclude that the court did not err in directing a verdict on the issue of serious injury because plaintiffs were not required to make that showing in the first instance.{**43 AD3d at 192}

IV

The remaining issues raised by defendant do not require a new trial. Defendant contends that the award of damages for Michael Meegan’s derivative claim must be vacated because the SUM endorsement does not provide coverage for derivative losses. There is no need to reach defendant’s contention, however, because derivative damages awarded for loss of consortium must be added to the direct damages awarded in determining the limit of liability for bodily injury sustained by one person (see Champagne v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 185 AD2d 835, 837 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 704 [1993]). In other words, the SUM coverage under this policy was $250,000 per person and $500,000 per accident, and the award of damages for plaintiff and the derivative damages for Michael Meegan cannot exceed $250,000 because plaintiff and Michael are considered one person in this context. Because the award to plaintiff exceeded $250,000, there cannot be an additional amount awarded to Michael Meegan.

There is also no need for a new trial based on the court’s having granted plaintiffs’ [*6]motion in limine in part by precluding an expert from testifying with respect to an entry in the medical records of one of plaintiff’s physicians. Assuming, arguendo, that the court erred in granting that part of plaintiffs’ motion, we conclude that the error is harmless. The entry in the medical records stated that plaintiff “has TMJ problems,” and there was other evidence before the jury concerning plaintiff’s preexisting condition of TMJ dysfunction.

We agree with defendant and the majority that plaintiffs’ underinsurance claim is limited to $225,000, i.e., $250,000 less an offset of $25,000 for the payment made on behalf of the other driver. Plaintiffs’ reliance on Acquista v New York Life Ins. Co. (285 AD2d 73 [2001]) is misplaced. In that case, the plaintiff asserted causes of action for, inter alia, breach of contract and bad faith by defendant insurer (id. at 75). The First Department determined that the cause of action alleging bad faith could not stand as a “distinct tort cause of action [but that the] allegations may be employed to interpose a claim for consequential damages beyond the limits of the policy for the claimed breach of contract” (id. at 82). In this case, however, plaintiffs did not allege bad faith by defendant and thus cannot recover consequential damages beyond the limits of the policy.{**43 AD3d at 193}

V

Accordingly, we would affirm the order in appeal No. 1 and modify the judgment in appeal No. 2 by granting defendant’s posttrial motion in part and reducing the verdict to $225,000.

Lunn and Pine, JJ., concur with Peradotto, J.; Centra, J., and Gorski, J.P., dissent in part and vote to modify in accordance with a separate opinion by Centra, J.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is reversed on the law without costs, the cross motion for a directed verdict is denied in part, the posttrial motion is granted in part, the verdict is set aside, and a new trial is granted on the issues of serious injury and damages.

Footnotes

Footnote *: We recognize that the regulations apply to claims for SUM benefits involving both uninsured and underinsured vehicles. Our analysis is limited, however, to situations involving only underinsured vehicles.

—[*1]

Appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Ontario County (Craig J. Doran, A.J.), dated April 23, 2004. The order and judgment, insofar as appealed from, denied that part of defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the first cause of action.

It is hereby ordered that the order and judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action after defendant refused to continue providing no-fault insurance benefits to Patricia Simmons (plaintiff). Defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and Supreme Court granted defendant’s motion only in part, denying the motion with respect to the first cause of action but otherwise dismissing the complaint. We affirm.

Contrary to the contention of defendant, it failed to meet its “heavy burden of showing lack of cooperation of its insured” as a matter of law (Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v Graham, 275 AD2d 1012, 1013 [2000]; see Thrasher v United States Liab. Ins. Co., 19 NY2d 159, 168-169 [1967]). Furthermore, defendant submitted conflicting medical opinions concerning the degree of plaintiff’s disability from work, thereby raising an issue of credibility for the trier of fact to resolve and rendering summary judgment inappropriate (see e.g. Gedon v Bry-Lin Hosps., 286 AD2d 892, 894 [2001], lv denied 98 NY2d 601 [2002]; Cavallaro v Baker, 187 AD2d 976 [1992]). By failing to establish that plaintiff was able to return to work, defendant failed to establish that plaintiff’s alleged refusal to participate in vocational rehabilitation constituted ” ‘willful and avowed obstruction’ ” (Thrasher, 19 NY2d at 168; see Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. [Salomon], 11 AD3d 315, 316 [2004]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Smith, Pine, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.

—[*1]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Donna M. Siwek, J.), entered June 17, 2003. The order granted the petition to vacate an arbitration award and denied respondent’s petition to confirm the award.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted the petition seeking to vacate the arbitration award directing petitioner to pay additional personal injury protection (APIP) benefits to respondent. Respondent was injured in an automobile accident on February 20, 1999 while operating a vehicle that belonged to a relative. That vehicle was insured by State Farm Insurance Company (State Farm), and respondent received no-fault insurance benefits from State Farm. On February 3, 2000, respondent, through an attorney whom she had recently retained, gave petitioner written notice of her claim for APIP benefits. Petitioner denied the claim because respondent failed to give notice within 90 days of the accident as required by respondent’s policy with petitioner. The parties proceeded to arbitration and the arbitrator determined that it was impossible for respondent to have given notice within 90 days because she was unaware of the seriousness of her condition until February 2000. That determination was upheld by the master arbitrator. Petitioner sought to have the award vacated and respondent petitioned for confirmation of the award.

As a preliminary matter, the court properly determined that it could not disturb the award on the ground that it was based upon an error of law, as urged by petitioner, but only on the ground that it lacked a rational basis (see Matter of Allen [New York State], 53 NY2d 694, 696 [1981]; see also CPLR 7511 [b] [1]). The policy required respondent to give notice “as soon as reasonably practicable, but in no event more than 90 days after the date of the accident, unless the eligible injured person submits written proof that it was impossible to comply with such time limitation due to specific circumstances beyond such person’s control.” We note that this notice requirement is more stringent than notice requirements for supplemental underinsured motorist benefits, which typically require notice as soon as practicable (see e.g. Medina v State Farm Mut. [*2]Auto. Ins. Co., 303 AD2d 987, 988 [2003]; see generally Matter of Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v Mancuso, 93 NY2d 487, 494-495 [1999]). Even assuming, arguendo, that respondent was not aware of the seriousness of her injuries until February 2000, the record establishes that respondent sought medical treatment for her injuries two days after the accident and, because her symptoms continued to worsen, she was referred to a specialist, who, among other things, ordered an MRI within the 90-day period. That physician thereafter referred respondent to a neurosurgeon who ultimately advised respondent that surgery was required. Thus, we conclude that there is no rational basis for the arbitrator’s finding that it was impossible for respondent to provide notice to petitioner within the 90-day period because of circumstances beyond her control, as required by the policy.

All concur except Pine, J.P., and Lawton, J., who dissent and vote to reverse in accordance with the following memorandum.

Pine, J.P., and Lawton, J. (dissenting). We respectfully dissent. We concur with the majority that Supreme Court properly determined that it could not disturb the arbitrator’s award on the ground that it was based upon an error of law. We differ only with the majority’s holding that “there is no rational basis for the arbitrator’s finding that it was impossible for respondent to provide notice to petitioner within the 90-day period.” Because the finding of the arbitrator was based upon the weighing of factual matters and the record supports that determination, the court is powerless to substitute its determination for that of the arbitrator (see Matter of United Fedn. of Teachers, Local 2, AFT, AFL-CIO v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 1 NY3d 72, 83 [2003]; Matter of New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Assn. v State of New York, 94 NY2d 321, 326 [1999]; Matter of Singleton [Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co.], 247 AD2d 868 [1998]). We would therefore reverse the order, deny petitioner’s petition, grant respondent’s petition and confirm the arbitrator’s award. Present—Pine, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe, Martoche and Lawton, JJ.

—[*1]Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Donna M. Siwek, J.), entered May 14, 2003. The order granted the petition for a permanent stay of arbitration.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is affirmed without costs for reasons stated in decision at Supreme Court.

All concur except Gorski, J., who dissents and votes to reverse in accordance with the following memorandum.

Gorski, J. (dissenting). I respectfully disagree with the position taken by the majority. I conclude that it was error to grant the petition to stay arbitration of this insurance dispute.

In its decision, Supreme Court acknowledged that, on January 3, 2002, respondent, a pedestrian, was struck by an unidentified car driven by an unidentified driver and sustained personal injuries. The court also acknowledged that petitioner issued a motor vehicle liability policy with a supplementary uninsured motorists (SUM) endorsement to respondent that was in effect on January 3, 2002. The court concluded that respondent’s November 6, 2002 notice to petitioner that respondent intended to seek SUM benefits under his policy was untimely.

It is apparent from the record, however, that, on January 10, 2002, just one week after the accident, respondent gave a recorded statement to an independent insurance adjusting company at petitioner’s request. That recorded statement was reduced to a written transcript and signed by respondent on January 21, 2002. It indicated that the vehicle that struck him could not be identified because it left the scene. The statement also indicated that respondent did not see the vehicle that struck him and could not identify the make or model of the vehicle because he was struck from behind. The statement further set forth the extent and nature of the injuries suffered by respondent. It is undisputed that respondent timely submitted a claim for no-fault benefits to petitioner.

By letter dated November 6, 2002, respondent’s attorney placed petitioner on notice of a potential SUM claim. On November 19, petitioner denied SUM coverage on the ground of late [*2]notice. On December 12, petitioner received a demand for arbitration, and subsequently brought the instant petition to stay the arbitration. As noted above, the court granted the petition and permanently stayed the arbitration, holding that respondent failed to timely notify petitioner of his claim for SUM benefits under his policy. The court determined that respondent did not give notice of his SUM claim “as soon as practicable,” a condition of SUM coverage set forth in the policy.

Respondent, who suffered a fractured arm that required surgery, received no-fault benefits from petitioner. He could only have received those benefits pursuant to Insurance Law § 5103 (a) (2), which requires insurers to provide coverage to their policyholders “for loss arising out of the use or operation of . . . an uninsured motor vehicle.”

I therefore believe that the requirement that respondent provide his insurer with notice of his claim “as soon as practicable” was met by the recorded statement given to the insurer one week after the accident, fully detailing the claim. “Construing the notice liberally in [respondent’s] favor, [respondent] provided [his] insurer with sufficient notice of a claim for uninsured motorist coverage” (Matter of Merchants Mut. Ins. Co. v Falisi, 99 NY2d 568, 569 [2003], rearg denied 100 NY2d 535 [2003]). I believe that it is “inconsistent and inequitable” for petitioner to contend that it did not have timely notice of respondent’s claim for SUM benefits after petitioner took a recorded, signed statement of respondent 10 months earlier containing all of the essential elements of such claim (Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. [Guarino], 11 AD3d 909, 910 [2004]).

I would therefore reverse the order and deny the petition. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Gorski, Martoche and Hayes, JJ.

—[*1]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Amy J. Fricano, J.), entered May 7, 2003. The order granted the application of petitioner for a permanent stay of arbitration.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law with costs and the application is denied.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75, seeking a permanent stay of arbitration of respondents’ claim for supplementary uninsured motorist (SUM) benefits based on the failure of respondents to provide the requisite written notice of their claim “[a]s soon as practicable,” in accordance with the automobile policy issued by petitioner to respondents. We previously reversed an order of Supreme Court (Joslin, J.) referring petitioner’s application for a stay of arbitration to an arbitrator, and we remitted the matter to Supreme Court for a hearing to determine whether respondents provided timely notice (Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. [Guarino], 283 AD2d 982 [2001]). Respondents appeal from an order of Supreme Court (Fricano, J.) that, following the hearing, granted petitioner’s application for a permanent stay of arbitration based on respondents’ failure to provide timely notice. We reverse.

Respondent Sue Guarino (claimant) was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident on March 8, 1997. Although claimant immediately consulted with various medical providers for treatment of her back and neck injuries, all indications at the time were that claimant had not sustained a serious injury as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d). A report of an MRI performed in October 1997 recited that claimant had a “minimal right C5-6 disc bulge causing no apparent compromise” to the nerve and that claimant’s cervical spine was “otherwise normal.” Moreover, according to the report of a neurologist who performed an independent medical evaluation (IME) of claimant on March 17, 1998 on behalf of petitioner, claimant did not sustain a herniated disc in her neck or a cervical radiculopathy as a result of the accident. Instead, the IME physician concluded that claimant had sustained only cervical and lumbar strains, which are “soft tissue injuries [that] would be expected to heal in a matter of weeks to months,” and in any event the IME physician could not “clearly relate her ongoing discomforts to the motor vehicle [*2]accident.” On the basis of that IME report, petitioner in March 1998 denied claimant’s application for no-fault benefits. We note that it is both inconsistent and inequitable, in light of that denial of no-fault benefits, for petitioner now to contend that claimant was then on notice that she had a viable claim for SUM benefits.

The record establishes that it was not until mid-July 1998, at the earliest, that claimant was on notice that she had sustained a serious injury as a result of the accident. At that time, claimant received the report of her orthopedic surgeon, who indicated that the October 1997 MRI might have been misread and might in fact show a disc herniation at C5-6. Claimant was referred for another MRI that, according to a second report of the surgeon issued one month later, showed “a right-sided paracentral herniation at C5-6 with extrusion” as well as a “bulging of the annulus fibrosis at L5-S1 . . . [that] may be due to an annular tear.” Within six weeks of the issuance of that second report, respondents gave petitioner written notice of the SUM claim.

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the court erred in determining that respondents did not give timely notice of the claim and in granting petitioner’s application to stay arbitration on that ground. We conclude that claimant acted with due diligence in ascertaining the medical facts underlying her SUM claim, and that respondents established that the overall 19-month delay in notifying petitioner of the SUM claim was reasonable (see Medina v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 303 AD2d 987, 988-989 [2003]; Matter of Nationwide Ins. Co. [Bellreng], 288 AD2d 925 [2001]; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. [Earl], 284 AD2d 1002, 1004 [2001]; Matter of Nationwide Ins. Enter. [Leavy], 268 AD2d 661, 662-663 [2000]; see also Matter of Travelers Ins. Co. [DeLosh], 249 AD2d 924, 925-926 [1998]). Present—Green, J.P., Kehoe, Martoche and Hayes, JJ.

—[*1]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John F. O’Donnell, J.), entered April 1, 2003. The order denied the petition for an order permanently staying arbitration.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is reversed on the law without costs and the petition is granted.

Memorandum: Respondent submitted claims for no-fault insurance benefits for injuries he sustained in a motor vehicle accident in September 1995. Petitioner denied respondent’s claim for lost wages on May 6, 1996 and denied the balance of respondent’s claim on September 3, 1996. Respondent served a demand for arbitration dated August 29, 2002 via Federal Express overnight mail with signature required. Petitioner thereupon commenced this proceeding seeking a permanent stay of arbitration.

We conclude that Supreme Court erred in denying the petition. We agree with petitioner that service of the demand for arbitration by Federal Express mail is jurisdictionally defective because Federal Express mail is not one of the permitted methods of service set forth in CPLR 7503 (c) (see Matter of Spychalski [Continental Ins. Cos.], 58 AD2d 193, 196 [1977], affd 45 NY2d 847 [1978]; Matter of Yak Taxi v Teke, 41 NY2d 1020 [1977]; Matter of Nationwide Ins. Enter. [Denga], 302 AD2d 929 [2003]; Matter of Cartier v County of Nassau, 281 AD2d 477 [2001]; Matter of Metropolitan Cas. & Prop. Ins. Co. v Suggs, 268 AD2d 240 [2000]; cf. CPLR 3216; Balancio v American Optical Corp., 66 NY2d 750, 751 [1985]). We therefore reverse the order and grant the petition.

All concur except Green and Scudder, JJ., who dissent and vote to modify in accordance with the following memorandum.

Green and Scudder, JJ. (dissenting). We respectfully dissent. We disagree with the majority that the demand for arbitration by Federal Express mail is jurisdictionally defective because it is not one of the permitted methods of service set forth in CPLR 7503 (c), i.e., “in the same manner as a summons or by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested.” In our view, the procedure used herein is analogous to personal service by mail as provided for in CPLR 312-a. Furthermore, such service is the functional equivalent of registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, inasmuch as both methods provide for accountability and reliability with [*2]respect to the mailing and receipt of the demand for arbitration (see generally Secreto v International Bus. Machs. Corp., 194 Misc 2d 512, 513-514 [2003]). We therefore conclude that the demand for arbitration was properly served (see Matter of Andy Floors [Tyler Constr. Corp.], 202 AD2d 938, 939 [1994]).

Having concluded that the service is not jurisdictionally defective, we further conclude that respondent’s demand for arbitration is not time-barred with respect to the denial of respondent’s claim in September 1996. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the demand was properly served within the applicable six-year statute of limitations (see CPLR 213 [2]; 7502 [b]; see generally Gurnee v Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 55 NY2d 184, 193 [1982], rearg denied 56 NY2d 567 [1982], cert denied 459 US 837 [1982]). The remaining issue therefore is whether respondent’s demand for arbitration is time-barred with respect to the denial of respondent’s claim in May 1996. Respondent contends with respect thereto that, by filing the instant demand, he “re-filed” a demand for arbitration that was originally filed with the New York State Insurance Department and served on petitioner on October 1, 1997. He contends that his original demand was treated by the American Arbitration Association as “withdrawn without prejudice” because of settlement. Also pending at that time was a demand for arbitration made by a medical provider to which respondent had assigned his rights. Although the record establishes that arbitration hearings were scheduled and then adjourned by the American Arbitration Association, the record does not establish whether the hearings were to be conducted with respect to respondent’s claim, the medical provider’s claim, or both.

In denying the petition, Supreme Court determined that respondent filed a demand for arbitration in 1997 and that, because petitioner participated in a prior arbitration proceeding, it is barred from now seeking a stay of arbitration (see CPLR 7503 [b]). The court’s determination that respondent filed a demand for arbitration in 1997 is unsupported by the record, which contains only a copy of a cover letter from respondent’s attorney to the New York State Insurance Department and does not contain the demand for arbitration or the other enclosures discussed in the cover letter. Petitioner contends that it received only the cover letter. Petitioner further contends that it was never served with respondent’s demand for arbitration and thus that it participated only in arbitration proceedings with respect to the medical provider.

As respondent correctly concedes, arbitration with respect to the denial of his claim in May 1996 is time-barred if it is determined that there was no prior arbitration proceeding between these parties. If, however, it is determined that there was a prior arbitration proceeding between these parties, then petitioner’s “participation in the arbitration [proceeding] constituted a waiver of any right on [petitioner’s] part to . . . obtain a stay of arbitration on statute of limitations grounds” (Matter of Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Erie County White Collar Unit Local #815 [County of Erie], 303 AD2d 1050, 1051; see CPLR 7503 [b]). We cannot determine from this record, however, whether there was any such prior arbitration proceeding and therefore conclude that the issue whether that claim is barred by the statute of limitations is a threshold question requiring a trial forthwith (see CPLR 7503 [a]). Thus, we would modify the order accordingly, and we would grant a trial with respect to that issue. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Wisner, Scudder and Gorski, JJ.

—[*1]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Chautauqua County (Joseph Gerace, J.), entered February 19, 2003. The order denied petitioner’s motion for a permanent stay of arbitration and respondent’s cross motion for summary judgment and ordered that the matter proceed to arbitration.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent sustained injuries in a single-car accident at 2:51 a.m. on March 31, 2000. A blood test at the hospital at 4:20 a.m. indicated that respondent had a blood alcohol content of .10%. Respondent was charged with driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]) and subsequently pleaded guilty to driving while ability impaired (§ 1192 [1]). Respondent applied for no-fault benefits under her motor vehicle insurance policy, but petitioner denied the claim on the ground that it fell within the intoxication exclusion of the policy. Respondent filed a demand for arbitration, contending that she was not intoxicated at the time of the accident, and petitioner in turn commenced this proceeding seeking a stay of arbitration. After Supreme Court granted petitioner’s order to show cause for a temporary stay, petitioner moved for a permanent stay of arbitration. Respondent cross-moved for summary judgment granting her no-fault benefits as a matter of law. The court denied the motion and cross motion and ordered that the matter proceed to arbitration, concluding that, while res judicata did not apply to bar arbitration, respondent raised an issue of fact whether she was actually intoxicated within the meaning of the policy.

We affirm, but for a different reason. We conclude that petitioner’s supporting affidavit fails to allege a sufficient basis upon which to grant a stay of arbitration (see CPLR 7503 [b]). There are only three threshold questions to be resolved by a court faced with a motion to stay arbitration: whether there is a valid agreement to arbitrate; if so, whether there was compliance with the agreement; and whether the claim would be time-barred if asserted in State court (see Matter of Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co. v Luckie, 85 NY2d 193, 201-202 [1995], rearg denied 85 NY2d 1033 [1995]; Matter of County of Rockland [Primiano Constr. Co.], 51 NY2d 1, 6-7 [1980]). The insurance policy at issue here contains a broad agreement to arbitrate “any matter relating to the [*2]claim” and thus it is for the arbitrator to decide whether respondent was intoxicated and thus not entitled to no-fault benefits under the policy (see Matter of Cowper Co. [Hires-Turner Glass Co.], 72 AD2d 934 [1979], affd 51 NY2d 937 [1980]; see also Matter of Resnick v Serlin, 119 AD2d 825 [1986]). Further, the policy does not contain a condition precedent to arbitration and there is no dispute over a limitations period. Thus, we conclude that the parties agreed to arbitrate the instant dispute and that it is for the arbitrator to address the merits of the dispute (see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Alfarone, 62 AD2d 1034, 1035 [1978]; see also CPLR 7501). Present—Green, J.P., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.