You are here: / / Question of Fact Raised About Whether Injury Incurred by State Trooper;...

Question of Fact Raised About Whether Injury Incurred by State Trooper; Paramedic when Removing Injured Person from Crashed Car Was Covered “Occurrence” Under Trooper; Paramedic’s Supplementary Uninsured-Underinsured Motorist Policy

Plaintiff, a state trooper, licensed registered nurse and paramedic, was injured helping to remove an injured person (Williams) from a car struck by Prindle’s car. Plaintiff sued Prindle and the action was settled for the policy limit. Then plaintiff sought to recover under his own supplementary uninsured-underinsured motorist policy (hereinafter SUM) (the defendant in this case).  The defendant insurance company denied coverage, claiming plaintiff was not injured in an automobile accident.  In affirming Supreme Court’s finding that the insurance company was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the action because the policy language allowed the interpretation plaintiff’s injury was related to the “use” of Pringle’s vehicle, the Third Department wrote:

“[SUM] coverage policies, such as the one at issue herein, apply only when an insured’s injuries are [proximately] ’caused by an accident arising out of [the underinsured] motor vehicle’s ownership, maintenance or use'”….  Under the circumstances here, Supreme Court properly concluded that defendant failed to meet  its threshold burden of demonstrating  that plaintiff’s injury was not caused by the use of Prindle’s underinsured vehicle. We reject defendant’s narrow interpretation of the SUM policy’s provision requiring  that  the  insured’s  injuries be directly caused by an accident that arose out of the use of a vehicle and defendant’s related assertion that the accident complained of here occurred only at the time of plaintiff’s injury. Construing the language of the policy liberally and resolving any ambiguity in favor of the insured …, defendant’s interpretation is contrary to the plain meaning thereof.  Kesnick v New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 514901, 3rd Dept, 5-9-13

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

You might also like
Broken Sentence Promise Required Vacatur of the Guilty Plea
ORDER LIMITING TRIAL EVIDENCE WAS APPEALABLE.
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS NOT ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) WHEN A BRIDGE FORM HE WAS UNLOADING FELL ON HIM, PLAINTIFF MADE A SUFFICIENT SHOWING OF LONG-ARM JURISDICTION TO WARRANT DISCOVERY (THIRD DEPT).
Separation and Modification Agreements Did Not Comply with the Child Support Standards Act
Children’s Attorney Entitled to Cross-Examine Petitioner’s Witnesses Despite Taking a Position Similar to Petitioner’s
Statutory Prohibition of Court Review of Civil Service Commission’s Determination (Where the Employee Elects to Appeal to the Commission Before Seeking Judicial Review) Does Not Apply When Constitutional Rights Are Implicated or Where the Agency Has Acted Illegally or In Excess of Its Jurisdiction
Nail and Mail Service Not Valid—Not Calculated to Give Timely Notice of Order to Show Cause Challenging an Independent Nominating Petition
EVIDENCE OF MOTHER’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF A SUSPENDED JUDGMENT WAS INCOMPLETE, AND, ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE OF FATHER’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WAS SUFFICIENT, FAMILY COURT DID NOT TAKE THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN INTO CONSIDERATION, TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS REVERSED (THIRD DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Wrong Incident-Address in Notice of Claim (Not Intended to Mislead and Not Resulting... Backhoe Bucket Not “Falling Object” Within Meaning of Labor Law 240 (1)