You are here: / / Exclusions from Uninsured Motorist Coverage in Pennsylvania Policy Unenforceable...

Exclusions from Uninsured Motorist Coverage in Pennsylvania Policy Unenforceable in New York

The Second Department determined the exclusions from uninsured motorist coverage in a Pennsylvania policy violated New York public policy and the insurer was obligated to provide $300,000 of uninsured motorist coverage:

“[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 exclusions contained in the uninsured motorist coverage endorsement of Progressive’s Pennsylvania policy are not permitted by New York 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 exclusions are “without the approval or protection of the law” …, they should not be given effect … .

Since we have determined that the underlying exclusions are invalid, and the policy does not contain a term expressly limiting coverage to the statutory minimum, no such limitation will be read into the policy … . Consequently, Progressive’s policy must be read as affording uninsured motorist coverage up to its stated limit of $300,000. Braithewaite v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 02717, 2nd Dept 4-1-15

 

You might also like
CHOICE OF LAW PROVISIONS OF CONTRACT DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN UNAMBIGUOUS WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, THE INDIAN NATION WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION.
Wife’s Stipulation Waiving Claim to Benefits Valid Even though Law Unclear at Time of Stipulation and Benefits Later Determined by Court of Appeals to Be Marital Property
CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING DEFENDANTS PERFORMED AN UNWANTED C-SECTION BIRTH STATES AN INTENTIONAL TORT SUBJECT TO THE ONE YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST HOSPITALS (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Raised About Whether Signature on Promissory Note Was Forged
THERE WAS EVIDENCE DEFENDANTS’ EMPLOYEES DIRECTED TRUCKS TO DRIVE OVER THE DEFECTIVE SIDEWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS CREATED THE SIDEWALK DEFECT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, A SWIMMING OFFICIAL, SLIPPED ON WATER ON A POOL DECK AT AN INDOOR SWIMMING FACILITY; THE WATER ON THE POOL DECK CAME FROM AN OVERHEAD DEHUMIDIFICATION SYSTEM, NOT FROM SPLASHES FROM THE POOL; THE WATER WAS NOT NECESSARILY INCIDENTAL TO THE USE OF THE POOL AND THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANTS DID NOT CONTROL THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, NOT CONSTRUCTION. LABOR LAW 200 AND 240(1) CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED.
Although Defendant Was Not Responsible for the Pedestrian Ramp, There Was a Question of Fact Whether Defendant’s Snow Removal (from the Ramp) Created the Dangerous Condition

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

Defense Counsel’s Absence When Judge Decided to Replace a Sick Juror Not... Appellate Division Should Have Allowed Respondent to Answer Petition After Dismissal...