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
ALTHOUGH THE CITY HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ROAD DEFECT WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PETITIONER-BUS-DRIVER’S ACCIDENT, THERE WAS NO SHOWING THE CITY HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF PETITIONER’S ACCIDENT, INJURIES OR THE FACTS UNDERLYING HER THEORY OF LIABILITY; THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED; THERE WAS AN EXTENSIVE DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).
Police Officer Not Injured by “Recognized Hazard”—No Recovery Under Municipal Law/Labor Law—Officer Injured by Suspect After Mace Canister Failed
THE AVAILABILTY OF GOVERNMENT RECORDS ON A PUBLIC WEBSITE DOES NOT SATISFY A FOIL REQUEST; HERE THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE VILLAGE SHOULD HAVE WORKED WITH THE PETITIONER TO IDENTIFY THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Encroaching Hedge Was De Minimus Encroachment Re: Adverse Possession
PLAINTIFF’S SOLE REMEDY FOR HIS ON THE JOB INJURY IS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION; PLAINTIFF WAS NOT GRAVELY INJURED AND THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT WITH HIS EMPLOYER TO CONTRIBUTE, INDEMNIFY OR INSURE; THE EMPLOYER’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant’s Fourth Amendment Rights Violated When Officer Opened an Envelope Containing Defendant’s Personal Belongings at the Hospital Where Defendant Was Being Treated—The Fact that the Officer Thought Defendant Was a Crime Victim at the Time Does Not Matter—The Personal Belongings, Which Included Evidence of a Robbery, Should Have Been Suppressed
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE STAYED THE ENFORCEMENT OF PLAINTIFFS’ JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 5240 BASED ON COUNTERCLAIMS ASSERTED BY DEFENDANTS, ACTION ON THE COUNTERCLAIMS COULD PROCEED DESPITE ENFORCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S FORMER APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO ARGUE DEFENDANT’S TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE TIME-BARRED ENDANGERING-THE-WELFARE-OF-A-CHILD COUNTS; WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS GRANTED (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

Grand Jury Testimony Given a Year After the Relevant Event Should Not Have Been... Criteria for “Trivial Defect” and “Open and Obvious”...