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
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER VIOLATED THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AND THEREBY OWED A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF WHO ALLEGEDLY FELL OVER A CABLE ON THE SIDEWALK.
DEFAMATION ACTION AGAINST UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED UNDER THE MARTIN RULE, DEFAMATION ACTION AGAINST INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION AGAINST THE ASSOCIATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, INCLUDING AN ATTORNEY AFFIDAVIT, WAS NOT IN ADMISSIBLE FORM, THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS WERE NOT SIGNATORIES TO CONTRACTS WHICH REQUIRED ARBITRATION OF WAGE-UNDERPAYMENT ALLEGATIONS AND PLAINTIFFS DID NOT EXPLOIT THE BENEFITS OF THE CONTRACTS; THEREFORE PLAINTIFFS COULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO ARBITRATE (SECOND DEPT).
Agents of Property Owner Can Be Liable Under Labor Law 240(1)
BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT RESTAURANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL HAD LAST BEEN INSPECTED PRIOR TO THE FALL; THEREFORE THE RESTAURANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED WET CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A LADDER WHEN A TIRE STORED ON THE ROOF OF A SHED FELL AND STRUCK THE LADDER, THE TIRE WAS NOT BEING HOISTED AND DID NOT NEED TO BE SECURED FOR THE PURPOSES OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, THE ACCIDENT THEREFORE WAS NOT COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) (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

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