You are here: / / DUPLICATE COVERAGE PROHIBITION IN SUPPLEMENTAL UNINSURED UNDERINSURED MOTORIST...

DUPLICATE COVERAGE PROHIBITION IN SUPPLEMENTAL UNINSURED UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM) ENDORSEMENT NOT VIOLATED WHERE OVERALL DAMAGES EXCEED AMOUNT WHICH CAN BE RECOVERED FROM SEVERAL TORTFEASORS.

The Second Department determined the “duplicate coverage” prohibition in the supplemental uninsured/underinsured motorist (SUM) endorsement of the GEICO policy did not prevent plaintiff's widow, Maria Sherlock, from proceeding to arbitration seeking coverage under the endorsement. The driver, Maldonado, who struck and killed plaintiff's decedent had a policy with $50,000 coverage. Maldonado's insurer settled for its $50,000 limit. Because the accident occurred during a police chase and the municipality was sued, the municipality's insurer settled for $425,000.  Geico argued any recovery under the SUM endorsement would constitute prohibited duplicate coverage. Maria Sherlock argued the overall damages were in the millions and recovery of difference between the $250,000 SUM limit and the $50,000 paid out under defendant's policy would therefore not be duplicative, even taking into account the $425,000 recovery from the municipality:

The key to a proper understanding of [the duplicate coverage prohibition] is the recognition that “shall not duplicate” is not aimed at preventing an insured from seeking full compensation by combining partial recoveries from several tortfeasors, but at preventing double recoveries for their bodily injuries.

… Sherlock alleged in her request for arbitration that the bodily injury damages are in the millions of dollars. Presumably, if the Maldonado defendants' policy had contained the same $250,000 liability limit that the GEICO policy provided, … Sherlock would have been able to obtain $250,000 from the Maldonado defendants' insurer as well as the $425,000 from the [municipal] defendants' insurer. … Sherlock seeks only, through her claim under the SUM endorsement—for which she paid a premium—to be in the same position she would have been in had the Maldonado defendants not been underinsured relative to the GEICO policy. Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Sherlock, 2016 NY Slip Op 04414, 2nd Dept 6-8-16

INSURANCE LAW (DUPLICATE COVERAGE PROHIBITION IN SUPPLEMENTAL UNINSURED UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM) ENDORSEMENT NOT VIOLATED WHERE OVERALL DAMAGES EXCEED AMOUNT WHICH CAN BE RECOVERED FROM SEVERAL TORTFEASORS)/SUPPLEMENTAL UNINSURED UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM) ENDORSEMENT (DUPLICATE COVERAGE PROHIBITION IN SUPPLEMENTAL UNINSURED UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM) ENDORSEMENT NOT VIOLATED WHERE OVERALL DAMAGES EXCEED AMOUNT WHICH CAN BE RECOVERED FROM SEVERAL TORTFEASORS)/NON-DUPLICATION PROVISION (DUPLICATE COVERAGE PROHIBITION IN SUPPLEMENTAL UNINSURED UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM) ENDORSEMENT NOT VIOLATED WHERE OVERALL DAMAGES EXCEED AMOUNT WHICH CAN BE RECOVERED FROM SEVERAL TORTFEASORS)

You might also like
Forum Selection Clause Upheld; Not Shown to Be Unreasonable
PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED AND FELL WHEN SHE CAUGHT HER FOOT UNDER A TIRE-WHEEL STOP IN A PARKING LOT, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE WHEEL STOP WAS LAST INSPECTED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE APPLIED TO PLAINTIFF’S USE OF DEFENDANTS’ HOVER BOARD IN DEFENDANTS’ DRIVEWAY; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE INABILITY TO IDENTIFY THE SLIPPERY SUBSTANCE WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL WAS FATAL TO THE LAWSUIT; ALLEGING THE FLOOR WAS SHINY OR SLIPPERY IS NOT ENOUGH, CRITERIA EXPLAINED IN SOME DEPTH (SECOND DEPT).
Insurance Law 5214 Does Not Apply Where Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC) Is Sued Directly Because the Identity of the Driver Who Caused Plaintiff’s Injury Is Unknown/Default Judgment Against MVAIC Properly Entered
PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF PARTICIPATING IN AN OBSTACLE COURSE RACE; PLAINTIFF FELL ATTEMPTING A ‘MONSTER CLIMB’ WHICH HAD BEEN ERECTED ON A ROADWAY WITH NO MATS BENEATH (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S SIGNING A CONSENT FORM PRIOR TO SURGERY DID NOT REQUIRE DISMISSAL OF THE LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT EXERCISED SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER THE MEANS AND METHODS OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK (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

JUDGE WAS BIASED AGAINST MOTHER WHO SOUGHT TO PREVENT THE IMMUNIZATION OF HER... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WATER RUNOFF CONSTITUTED TRESPASS AND NUISANCE.