You are here: / / SUPPLEMENTAL UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORIST PROVISIONS WERE UNAMBIGUOUS,...
,

SUPPLEMENTAL UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORIST PROVISIONS WERE UNAMBIGUOUS, RECOVERY LIMITED TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT RECOVERED UNDER THE TORTFEASOR’S POLICY AND $50,000, HERE THE DIFFERENCE WAS ZERO.

The Second Department determined the relevant supplemental uninsured/underinsured motorist (SUM) provisions of appellant's policy were unambiguous and limited recovery for the death of appellant's daughter to a total of $50,000. Appellant argued the policy allowed recovery of the $50,000 limit, despite recovery of $50,000 under the tortfeasor's policy:

Based upon the … provisions of the policy, the Supreme Court properly found that the $50,000 recovered by the appellant from the tortfeasor was equivalent to the maximum SUM limit provided for in the policy. Therefore, the appellant had no possibility of an additional recovery, which rendered her SUM claim academic … . The language of the SUM endorsement was not ambiguous and must be enforced … . Matter of Ameriprise Auto & Home Ins. Co. v Savio, 2016 NY Slip Op 02358, 2nd Dept 3-30-16

INSURANCE LAW (SUPPLEMENTAL UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORIST PROVISIONS WERE UNAMBIGUOUS, RECOVERY LIMITED TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT RECOVERED UNDER THE TORTFEASOR'S POLICY AND $50,000, HERE THE DIFFERENCE WAS ZERO)/SUPPLEMENATAL UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM) COVERAGE (SUPPLEMENTAL UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORIST PROVISIONS WERE UNAMBIGUOUS, RECOVERY LIMITED TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT RECOVERED UNDER THE TORTFEASOR'S POLICY AND $50,000, HERE THE DIFFERENCE WAS ZERO)/CONTRACT LAW (INSURANCE POLICY, SUPPLEMENTAL UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORIST PROVISIONS WERE UNAMBIGUOUS, RECOVERY LIMITED TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT RECOVERED UNDER THE TORTFEASOR'S POLICY AND $50,000, HERE THE DIFFERENCE WAS ZERO)

You might also like
Papers Sufficient to Require Suppression Hearing—No Need to Allege Expectation of Privacy Where Police Act Illegally
IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DEFENDANTS’ EXPERTS DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE BILLS OF PARTICULARS AND RELIED ON A DISPUTED FACT; DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS FOUND AT THE BOTTOM OF STAIRS; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE THE CAUSE OF THE FALL WAS UNKNOWN; IN ADDITION, THE NOSEWORTHY DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT).
THREE-FOOT HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL IN ROOF LEVELS WAS NOT THE TYPE OF ELEVATION HAZARD CONTEMPLATED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiffs Raised a Question of Fact Whether “SLAPP” Suit Has a Substantial Basis in Fact and Law
Plaintiffs’ Failure to Attend Depositions Warranted Dismissal of Complaint
EDUCATIONAL NEGLECT FINDING FOR EIGHT-YEAR-OLD WAS SUPPORTED; BUT THE DERIVATIVE EDUCATIONAL NEGLECT FINDING FOR THE FOUR-MONTH-OLD WAS NOT (SECOND DEPT).
THE ISSUE OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IN THIS BICYCLE-VEHICLE ACCIDENT CASE CAN BE CONSIDERED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF ARGUED HE WAS NOT COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; PLAINTIFF DID NOT ELIMINATE ALL QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER HE WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT; PLAINTIFF RAN INTO THE DOOR OF DEFENDANT’S CAR AS IT WAS BEING OPENED (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

JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCUSED FOR CAUSE, CONVICTION REVERSED. FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN AREA WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED REQUIRED DENIAL...