You are here: / / Damages for “Loss of Fetus” Under Insurance Law 5102 Are Not...
,

Damages for “Loss of Fetus” Under Insurance Law 5102 Are Not Available When the Baby Is Born Alive

The Second Department determined that the “loss of fetus” provision of Insurance Law 5102 did not apply to the birth of a live child allegedly induced by a car accident:

[Plaintiff] was pregnant at the time of the accident, and she alleges that she suffered a placental abruption which caused her son, the infant plaintiff, to be born prematurely and delivered by caesarean section. * * *

The defendants subsequently moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as alleged that [plaintiff], individually, sustained a serious injury under the “loss of a fetus” category of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the subject accident * * *. …[T]he Supreme Court concluded, in essence, that the phrase “loss of a fetus” encompassed any termination of a pregnancy caused by an accident, regardless of whether the fetus was born alive.

In cases involving statutory construction, legislative intent is the controlling principle … . “The Court’s threshold inquiry in this regard is how to discern the legislative intent. When an enactment displays a plain meaning, the courts construe the legislatively chosen words so as to give effect to that Branch’s utterance” … . Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the plain meaning of the term “loss of a fetus” does not include the premature birth of a living child. Rather, this category of damages is applicable where, as a result of an automobile accident, a viable pregnancy terminates with loss of the fetus … .

We note that this determination is consistent with legislative history, which reveals that the “loss of a fetus” category was added to Insurance Law § 5102(d) in 1984 in response to Raymond v Bartsch (84 AD2d 60). In that case, the Appellate Division, [3rd] Department, held that Insurance Law § 5102(d), as then constituted, did not permit a woman, who was nine months pregnant at the time of her accident, to recover damages resulting from her delivery of a stillborn baby. The “loss of a fetus” category was added to the statute in recognition that “[a] woman who is involved in an automobile accident that results in the termination of her pregnancy has suffered a serious injury and should have the right to recover from a negligent operator for her non-economic loss” (Sponsor’s Mem, Bill Jacket, L 1984, ch 143). The policy considerations underlying the 1984 amendment of Insurance Law § 5102(d) are not implicated when a child is born alive. Leach v Ocean Black Car Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 07477, 2nd Dept 11-5-14

 

You might also like
EXPERT AFFIDAVITS, SUBMITTED SOLELY ON THE ISSUE OF PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE COURT, EVEN THOUGH THE EXPERTS WERE NOT QUALIFIED TO ASSESS WHETHER THE DEFENDANT CHIROPRACTOR DEVIATED FROM THE APPROPRIATE STANDARD OF CARE.
MOTION TO SET ASIDE VERDICT IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE WAS PROPERLY GRANTED, PLAINTIFF, A SCHOOL BUS MATRON INJURED ON THE BUS, DID NOT HAVE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.
Town Has Duty to Defend Former Town Clerk Accused of Sexual Harassment Within the Scope of Employment
TO BE ENTITLED TO A CHANGE OF VENUE AS OF RIGHT, THE DEMAND MUST BE SERVED WITH THE ANSWER OR BEFORE THE ANSWER IS SERVED; TO BE ENTITLED TO A DISCRETIONAY CHANGE OF VENUE, THE MOTION MUST BE MADE PROMPTLY AFTER LEARNING OF THE GROUND FOR THE CHANGE; HERE THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
COURT FAILED TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER FATHER WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, CONSENT ORDER REVIEWABLE IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE.
LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION, PREMISED ON DEFENDANT’S AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE OR CONTROL THE PERFORMANCE OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON FOR THE REFEREE’S REPORT WERE LISTED BUT NOT SUBMITTED, RENDERING THE REPORT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).
THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW PROHIBITION OF SEEKING REIMBURSEMENT OF MEDICAL COSTS FROM A TORT ACTION SETTLEMENT DOES NOT APPLY TO SELF-FUNDED EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS (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

Electronic Documents Constitute “Tangible Personal Property” and... Dismissal of a Criminal Charge In the Interest of Justice Can Constitute a “Termination...