You are here: / / Automobile Policy Does Not Cover Injury to Passerby Bitten by a Dog Which...
,

Automobile Policy Does Not Cover Injury to Passerby Bitten by a Dog Which Was Inside a Vehicle

In finding that the underinsured endorsement for automobile insurance did not cover injuries incurred when plaintiff was bitten by a dog through the window of a car as she walked past, the Second Department explained:

Use of an automobile encompasses more than simply driving it, and includes all necessary incidental activities such as entering and leaving its confines … . To satisfy the requirement that it arose out of the “ownership, maintenance or use of” a motor vehicle, the accident must have arisen out of the inherent nature of the automobile and, as such, inter alia, the automobile must not merely contribute to the condition which produces the injury, but must, itself, produce the injury … . “[T]he vehicle itself need not be the proximate cause of the injury,” but “negligence in the use of the vehicle must be shown, and that negligence must be a cause of the injury” … . “To be a cause of the injury, the use of the motor vehicle must be closely related to the injury” … .

Here, as a matter of law, Reyes’s injuries did not result from the inherent nature of Kazimer’s vehicle, nor did the vehicle itself produce the injuries. The injuries were caused by Kazimer’s dog, and the vehicle merely contributed to the condition which produced the injury, namely, the location or situs for the injury. Allstate established that a causal relationship between the car and the incident was lacking, and Reyes failed to rebut that showing … .  Matter of Allstate Ins Co v Reyes, 2013 NY Slip Op 05566, 2nd Dept 8-7-13

 

You might also like
AFTER PLAINTIFFS’ CAR WAS SERVICED, A TIRE (WHEEL?) FELL OFF, CAUSING AN ACCIDENT; THE PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR THEORY OF LIABILITY (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT SEE THE CONDITION THAT CAUSED HIM TO FALL NEAR A SINK IN DEFENDANTS’ BATHROOM, BUT HIS PANTS WERE WET AFTER THE FALL; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT TO HIS MOTHER, ON THE PHONE, ABOUT NEEDING THE ASSISTANCE OF AN ATTORNEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE, ERROR WAS HARMLESS HOWEVER (SECOND DEPT).
COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED INDICTMENT ON GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE DEFENDANT WITHOUT GIVING THE PEOPLE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS IT, EVIDENCE BEFORE THE GRAND JURY DID NOT SUPPORT THE AGENCY DEFENSE.
COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST BROKER INDIVIDUALLY FOR NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION AND FOR BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY AGAINST THE BROKER’S CORPORATION.
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT NEVER ANSWERED THE COMPLAINT, HE APPEARED BY MAKING A MOTION TO DISMISS AND PARTICIPATED IN THE LITIGATION, THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION FOR FAILURE TO INCLUDE A NECESSARY PARTY OR THE FAILURE TO JOIN OR SUBSTITUTE A PARTY WAS NOT WARRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED CONSTRUCTION WORK ON DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY CAUSED WATER TO ENCROACH ON PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY; THE NEGLIGENCE ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED BECAUSE THE CONSTRUCTION WORK WAS DONE MORE THAN THREE YEARS BEFORE THE ACTION WAS FILED; THE RELATED NUISANCE AND TRESPASS ACTIONS WERE NOT TIME-BARRED BECAUSE THEY MAY CONSTITUTE “CONTINUING WRONGS” (SECOND DEPT). ​
Notice to Admit Improperly Sought Admission at Heart of Case

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

Criteria for Prohibition Explained SORA Court Has Discretion to Deny Downward Departure Even When Mitigating Factor...