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
THE PLAINTIFF, A MALE EMT, ALLEGED HE WAS TERMINATED BECAUSE OF HIS INVOLVEMENT IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT AND SEVERAL FEMALE EMT’S WERE INVOLVED IN COMPARABLE ACCIDENTS BUT WERE NOT TERMINATED; PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR SEX DISCRIMINATION (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE FROM AN IN CAMERA INTERVIEW WITH A JUROR CONCERNING POSSIBLE DISQUALIFICATION WAS NOT SHOWN TO HAVE HAD A SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT ON THE DEFENDANT’S ABILITY TO DEFEND AGAINST THE CHARGES (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant’s Motion for a Judgment as a Matter of Law, Made Prior to the Close of Plaintiff’s Case, Was Premature and Should Not Have Been Granted Irrespective of the Improbability of Plaintiff’s Ultimate Success
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE BUS DRIVER RESPONDED REASONABLY UPON HEARING THE SIREN OF A FIRE TRUCK APPROACHING AN INTERSECTION; PLAINTIFF, A PASSENGER, WAS INJURED WHEN THE BUS DRIVER SLAMMED ON THE BRAKES (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN THIS BREACH OF AN INSURANCE CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT). ​
NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION CAUSE ACTION BASED UPON A JANITOR’S CALLING PLAINTIFF’S DAUGHTER NAMES PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PROOF JANITOR WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR INSUFFICIENT, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, DEFAMATION, AND PRIMA FACIE TORT CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
GRANDFATHER DEMONSTRATED “EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES” AFFORDING HIM STANDING TO PETITION FOR CUSTODY OF THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
INFANT PLAINTFF WAS STRUCK BY DEFENDANT DRIVER WHILE IN A CROSS-WALK WITH THE WALK SIGNAL ON; SUN-GLARE IS NOT AN “EMERGENCY” WHICH WILL RAISE A QUESTON OF FACT; PLAINTIFFS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST 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

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