You are here: / / Exclusion from Uninsured Motorist Coverage and Related Coverage Limitations...

Exclusion from Uninsured Motorist Coverage and Related Coverage Limitations In Policy Issued in Ohio Not Valid in New York

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the provision in a policy issued in Ohio to an Ohio resident which purported to exclude uninsured motorist coverage was invalid and unenforceable in New York:

The respondent, Robert Johnson, was involved in a motor vehicle accident in which the car he was driving collided with another vehicle that failed to stop at a stop sign. The car he was driving was owned by Johnson’s sister, who lived in Ohio and was insured under a personal automobile liability policy issued in that state by the proposed additional respondent, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (hereinafter State Farm). The policy contained an endorsement for uninsured motorist coverage, which provided for liability limits of $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident, but excluded from the definition of an insured any person who is insured for uninsured motor vehicle coverage under another vehicle policy.

When Johnson eventually made a claim for uninsured motorist benefits under the State Farm policy, State Farm disclaimed coverage on the ground that, inasmuch as records showed that Johnson had uninsured motor vehicle coverage available through a policy issued to him by the petitioner Government Employees Insurance Company (hereinafter GEICO), he did not meet the definition of an insured for purposes of uninsured motor vehicle coverage under the State Farm policy. * * *

GEICO’s counsel argued that the exclusion in the State Farm uninsured motorist endorsement is not valid in New York and, therefore, the State Farm policy should be deemed to have the full complement of coverage mandated by New York to make the State Farm coverage primary. …

“[I]nsurance policies, like all contracts, should be enforced according to their terms unless they are prohibited by public policy, statute or rule” … . “If an attempted exclusion is not permitted by law, the insurer’s liability under the policy cannot be limited” … . Here, the exclusion contained in the uninsured motorist coverage endorsement of State Farm’s personal automobile liability policy is not permitted by law. “Insurance Law § 3420(f)(1) requires that every automobile insurance policy contain an uninsured motor vehicle endorsement. Neither that statute nor any regulations applicable to it mentions any exclusions” … . Since the exclusion is “without the approval or protection of the law” …, it should not be given effect … .

Further, where, as here, the policy does not contain a term stating that coverage is limited to the statutory minimum, if such exclusion is found to be invalid, no such limitation will be read into the policy … .  Consequently, State Farm’s policy must be read as affording liability up to its full limits. Matter of Government Employees Ins Co v Johnson, 2014 NY Slip Op 08433, 2nd Dept 12-3-14

 

You might also like
THE AFFIDAVIT FROM THE LOAN SERVICER PURPORTING TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT AVER THAT THE AFFIANT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO ACT FOR THE PLAINTIFF BANK (SECOND DEPT).
BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT.
Defendant Not Afforded Right to Testify Before Grand Jury—Indictment Dismissed
POSSIBLE CONFUSION ABOUT WHICH MICHAEL YACUBICH AT THE SAME ADDRESS WAS THE “MIKE YACUBICH” SEEKING TO BE PLACED ON THE BALLOT FOR ASSEMBLY WAS NOT A PROPER GROUND FOR INVALIDATING THE DESIGNATING PETITION (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO PRESERVE VIDEO OF UNDERLYING INCIDENT DID NOT WARRANT STRIKING THE ANSWER.
ATTORNEY’S FEES IN EXCESS OF WHAT COURT AWARDED NOT AVAILABLE, NOT ENTITLED TO PAYMENT FOR APPELLATE WORK WITHOUT A RETAINER AGREEMENT, LETTER OF ENGAGEMENT IN MATRIMONIAL MATTERS IS MANDATORY.
Access to Financial Support from Family Properly Considered In Calculating Father’s Child Support and Child Care Obligations
EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF DID NOT TIMELY FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE AND DID NOT COMPLY WITH A PRIOR DISCOVERY ORDER, THE JUDGE WAS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, DISMISS THE COMPLAINT BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD NOT BEEN SERVED WITH A VAILD 90-DAY DEMAND TO FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE (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 Larceny 4th and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property 4th, as Those Statutes... Operative Principles Re: a Collision Where Plaintiff Has the Right-of-Way E...