## Facts

- The Matarasso insureds were injured in an automobile accident caused by an uninsured motorist.
- They held a primary automobile policy that included uninsured motorist (UM) coverage and an arbitration clause for UM disputes.
- The primary insurer paid the UM policy limits through the policy’s arbitration process.
- The insureds also held an umbrella excess-liability policy issued by Continental Casualty Company intended to provide coverage above the primary policy’s limits.
- The umbrella policy did not contain an arbitration clause and did not expressly provide UM coverage.
- After exhausting the primary UM limits, the insureds demanded arbitration against Continental for additional UM benefits under the umbrella policy.
- More than 20 days after the arbitration demand, Continental moved to stay arbitration, asserting it never agreed to arbitrate under the umbrella policy.
- The insureds argued the stay motion was untimely under CPLR 7503(c) and that the umbrella policy should be treated as providing excess UM coverage and arbitration.

## Issues

1. Whether CPLR 7503(c)’s 20-day deadline precludes a motion to stay arbitration when the movant asserts no agreement to arbitrate exists.
2. Whether an umbrella excess-liability policy that lacks an arbitration clause and does not expressly provide UM coverage can nevertheless be construed to require UM arbitration.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the order staying arbitration.
- The court held CPLR 7503(c)’s 20-day preclusion does not bar a stay application grounded on the nonexistence of any arbitration agreement.
- The court held Continental could not be compelled to arbitrate because the umbrella policy contained no agreement to arbitrate, and the insureds could not import the primary policy’s UM arbitration clause into the umbrella policy.

## Legal Principles

- Arbitration is consensual; a party cannot be required to arbitrate absent an agreement to arbitrate.
- CPLR 7503(c) generally requires a stay application within 20 days of an arbitration demand, but untimeliness does not forfeit an objection that no arbitration agreement was ever formed.
- A challenge to the scope or application of an existing arbitration clause is subject to CPLR 7503(c) preclusion if not timely raised; a challenge to the existence of any arbitration agreement is not.
- An umbrella excess-liability policy is construed by its own terms; absent an express provision (or a specific statutory mandate applicable to that policy), UM coverage and an arbitration obligation are not implied from an underlying automobile policy.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a stay of arbitration because the umbrella policy contained no arbitration agreement, and it held that CPLR 7503(c)’s 20-day deadline does not bar a motion to stay arbitration when the movant asserts that no agreement to arbitrate exists.


Matarasso v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 56 N.Y.2d 264 (1982)