You are here: / / Supplemental Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist (SUM) Provision Triggered...

Supplemental Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist (SUM) Provision Triggered When an Individual Would Be Afforded More Coverage by the Policy with the SUM Provision

The Second Department determined that the supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorist (SUM) provision was triggered when the policy with the provision (the GEICO policy) had a $300,000 single limit liability and the policy which paid out the claim (the Allstate policy) was a “split limit” policy with a $300,000 per accident limit and a $100,000 per person limit. The injured party was paid the $100,000 limit under the Allstate policy:

Benefits under a SUM policy, when SUM coverage is purchased at the option of the insured, are available “if the limits of liability under all bodily injury liability bonds and insurance policies of another motor vehicle liable for damages are in a lesser amount than the bodily injury liability insurance limits of coverage” provided by the insured’s policy (Insurance Law § 3420[f][2][A]…). “The necessary analytical step, then, is to place the insured in the shoes of the tortfeasor and ask whether the insured would have greater bodily injury coverage under the circumstances than the tortfeasor actually has” … . The determination of whether SUM benefits are available “requires a comparison of each policy’s bodily injury liability coverage as it in fact operates under the policy terms applicable to that particular coverage” … . “Only by doing that comparison is it possible to make the required determination: whether the tortfeasor has less bodily injury liability coverage than the insured” … .

Here, a comparison of the two policies at issue, in light of the particular circumstances of this case, demonstrates that an individual … would be afforded greater per-person bodily liability injury coverage under the GEICO policy than under the Allstate policy. Matter of Government Empls Ins Co v Lee, 2014 NY Slip Op 05642, 2nd Dept 8-6-14

 

You might also like
IN THIS ALL-TERRAIN-VEHICLE (ATV) ACCIDENT CASE, THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DRIVER UNREASONABLY INCREASED THE RISK TO PLAINTIFF-PASSENGER THEREBY PRECLUDING THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSUMPTION-OF-THE-RISK DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).
FACT THAT PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON A MARBLE FLOOR DID NOT ESTABLISH THE CAUSE OF THE FALL, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.
Dismissal of Deported Defendant’s Appeal (Without Prejudice) Appropriate Where Defendant’s Continued Participation in the Proceedings Would Be Required Should the Appeal Be Successful
THE CUSTODY-RELATED PRINCIPALS UNDERLYING MICHAEL B, 80 NY2D 299, APPLY TO THIS SURROGATE’S COURT GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDING WHERE BOTH PARENTS SEEK TO BE APPOINTED GUARDIAN OF THEIR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED SON AS HE TURNS 18; NEW EVIDENCE RENDERED THE RECORD INSUFFICIENT FOR A GUARDIANSHIP DETERMINATION; A NEW HEARING WAS ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
THE INCLUSION OF OTHER MATERIAL IN THE ENVELOPE CONTAINING THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION IS A DEFENSE WHICH CAN BE RAISED AT ANY TIME AND WHICH WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANTS (SECOND DEPT).
THE PROPER FOUNDATION FOR BUSINESS RECORDS WAS NOT LAID AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED, THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Family Court Should Have Allowed Mother to Subpoena Medical Records to Rebut Allegations Against Her In Custody Proceeding​
DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH CPLR 3216 OR 22 NYCRR 202.7, AND THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION FOR A “SUA SPONTE” DISMISSAL (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Failure to Strictly Comply with the Statutory Requirements for the Contents... Contractor Was a Statutory Agent for the Owner for Purposes of the Labor Law...