You are here: / / Police Officer (a Passenger in a Police Car) Who Was Injured by Underinsured...
,

Police Officer (a Passenger in a Police Car) Who Was Injured by Underinsured Driver Was Covered By Police-Officer-Driver’s (Private) Underinsured Motorist Endorsement

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Hall, the Second Department determined that a police car is a “motor vehicle” within the meaning of an uninsured/underinsured motorist endorsement in a [State Farm] policy held by the driver.  The plaintiff, a police officer, was injured in an automobile accident with an underinsured driver. The question was whether the State Farm policy held by the driver of the police car, another police officer, could be financially responsible under the uninsured/underinsured endorsement in the driver’s policy.  The Second Department held that the driver’s underinsured endorsement covered the injured (police-officer) passenger.  The question at issue was whether the exclusion of “police vehicle” from the definition of “motor vehicle” in Vehicle and Traffic Law 388(2) applied.  The court ruled it did not and determined the operative definition of “motor vehicle” in this context was in Vehicle and Traffic Law 125:

Contrary to State Farm’s contention, VTL § 125, instead of VTL § 388(2), should be used to define the term “motor vehicle,” as it appears in the uninsured/underinsured motorist endorsement. VTL § 125 is a general provision that defines the relevant terminology for the entire VTL. In fact, VTL § 388(2) acknowledges this by incorporating by reference the VTL § 125 definition of “motor vehicle.” Additionally, it has been recognized that uninsured motorist coverage extends to all “motor vehicles,” as defined by VTL § 125 (…Insurance Law § 5202[a]…).

Police vehicles fall within the definition of a “motor vehicle” under VTL § 125 because they constitute a “vehicle operated or driven upon a public highway which is propelled by any power other than muscular power,” and they do not fall within any of the exclusions provided in the statute. Thus, the police vehicle at issue here falls within the definition of a “motor vehicle” under the uninsured/underinsured motorist endorsement.  Matter of State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co v Fitzgerald, 2013 NY Slip Op 07186, 2nd Dept 11-6-13

 

You might also like
DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OF THE SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING TO ALLOW REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS WHICH MAY BE RELEVANT TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
THE RULING OF THE TOWN PLANNING BOARD ENGINEER RE: A PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL PARK MUST BE CHALLENGED BEFORE THE TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, NOT SUPREME COURT (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE DEFENDANT SCHOOL DID NOT ELIMINATE TRIABLE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER IT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE TEACHER’S ABUSIVE PROPENSITIES; THE NEGLIGENT HIRING AND NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSES OF ACTION IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
NEGLIGENCE, AS OPPOSED TO STRICT LIABILITY, THEORY DID NOT APPLY TO INJURY FROM A HORSE WHICH WAS STARTLED WHEN THREE HORSES ESCAPED FROM A PADDOCK AND GALLOPED TOWARD THE BARN WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS GROOMING THE HORSE WHICH INJURED HER (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED PENDENTE LITE MAINTENANCE DESPITE WAIVER OF MAINTENANCE UPON TERMINATION OF THE MARRIAGE IN THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT, SUPREME COURT FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE DEVIATION FROM THE CHILD SUPPORT STANDARDS ACT IN ITS AWARD OF PENDENTE LITE CHILD SUPPORT, CASE REMITTED.
ORDER THAT THE PATIENT INMATE SHOULD BE TREATED WITH A PARTICULAR DRUG FOR SCHIZOPHRENIA OVER HIS OBJECTION SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, ORDER ALLOWING ALTERNATIVE DRUGS, AND A NONDURATIONAL ORDER NOT SUPPORTED (SECOND DEPT).
Motion to Intervene by Members of a De-Certified Class Should Have Been Granted—Class Members Allowed to Sue In Their Individual Capacities
IF THE 2008 FORECLOSURE ACTION COMMENCED BY AEGIS WAS VALID, THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION BY A DIFFERENT BANK WOULD BE TIME-BARRED; PLAINTIFF BANK RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT BY SUBMITTING EVIDENCE THAT AEGIS DID NOT POSSESS THE NOTE AND MORTGAGE AT THE TIME THE 2008 ACTION WAS COMMENCED AND THEREFORE DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE (SECOND 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

Burden of Proof for Relocation with Child Not Met Failure to Identify Industrial Code Violation in Pleadings Not Fatal/Supervisory...