You are here: / / INSURED DID NOT VIOLATE THE SUM POLICY BY SETTLING WITH THE OTHER DRIVER...

INSURED DID NOT VIOLATE THE SUM POLICY BY SETTLING WITH THE OTHER DRIVER WITHOUT THE SUM CARRIER’S CONSENT, THE SUM CARRIER WAS INFORMED OF THE SETTLEMENT AND TOOK NO ACTION WITHIN 30 DAYS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorist (SUM) carrier (petitioners) was not entitled to permanently stay arbitration on the ground that the injured party (appellant) had settled with other driver’s carrier without the SUM carrier’s consent. In fact the SUM carrier had notice of the settlement and took no action within 30 days. Therefore the settlement did not violate the SUM carrier’s policy:

… [T]he provisions of language set forth in Insurance Regulation 35-D (see 11 NYCRR 60-2.3), which must be included in all motor vehicle liability insurance policies in which SUM coverage has been purchased, require, inter alia, that where an insured advises the insurer of an offer to settle for the full amount of the tortfeasor’s policy, the insurer must either consent to the settlement or advance the settlement amount to the insured and assume the prosecution of the tort action within 30 days … . Where the insurer does not timely respond in accordance with such condition, the insured may settle with the tortfeasor without the insurer’s consent and without forfeiting his or her rights to SUM benefits … .

… The petitioners’ submissions demonstrated that the appellant executed a release … “after thirty calendar days actual written notice” to the petitioners, as provided for in Condition 10, which is required by Insurance Regulation 35-D to be part of the SUM endorsement. Consequently, the petitioners failed to establish that the appellant settled … in violation of a condition of the policy requiring the petitioners’ consent to settle. Unitrin Direct Ins. Co. v Muriqi, 2019 NY Slip Op 04178, Second Dept 5-29-19

 

You might also like
COMPLAINT ADEQUATELY ALLEGED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION AND A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT.
Pleading Requirements for Aiding and Abetting Fraud and Fraud Explained—Requirements Not Met Here
DEFENDANTS DID NOT SHOW THERE WAS A COMPELLING NEED FOR DISCOVERY OF ‘ALCOHOL/DRUG TREATMENT/MENTAL HEALTH INFORMATION/HIV-RELATED INFORMATION’ IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DISCOVERY REQUEST SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE PRESUMPTION DEFENDANT RECEIVED A LETTER ALLEGEDLY REQUESTING THAT SURVEILLANCE VIDEO BEFORE AND AFTER PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL BE PRESERVED AS THERE WAS NO PROOF OF MAILING, DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SANCTIONED FOR SPOLIATION PURSUANT TO CPLR 3126 (SECOND DEPT).
AFTER DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT AND FOLLOWING AN INQUEST ON DAMAGES PLAINTIFF WAS AWARDED ABOUT $275,000; THE JUDGE ORDERED PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT A NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND A PROPOSED JUDGMENT WITHIN 60 DAYS AS REQUIRED BY 22 NYCRR 202.48; PLANTIFF DID NOT DO SO FOR MORE THAN TWO AND A HALF YEARS; THE ORDER GRANTING THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND THE DECISION ON THE INQUEST WERE VACATED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THERE EXISTS A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR THIS REAR END COLLISION, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION WHICH RESULTED IN THE FORMATION OF ICE, TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
CONFUSION ABOUT THE EFFECT OF FINDING THE DEFENDANT NOT GUILTY BY VIRTUE OF THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL, IF THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE APPLIES TO A HIGHER COUNT THERE CAN BE NO FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF ANY LESSER COUNT (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

DESIGNATING PETITION PROPERLY INVALIDATED AND THE CANDIDATE’S NAME WAS... FAILURE TO INCLUDE CITY, STATE AND/OR ZIP CODES OF THE CANDIDATES’ RESIDENCES...