You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM) COVERAGE...
,

PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM) COVERAGE WAS GREATER THAN THE BODILY INJURY COVERAGE IN THE TORTFEASOR’S POLICY; SO THE SUM PROVISION OF PLAINTIFF’S POLICY WAS TRIGGERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant-insurer’s supplemental uninsured/underinsured motorist (SUM) benefits were triggered in the traffic accident case. The (SUM) coverage under plaintiff’s policy was greater than the bodily injury coverage in the  tortfeasor’s policy. Plaintiff had settled for the tortfeasor’s policy limit and then sought to collect SUM benefits under his policy. Plaintiff’s insurer had determined the policy was not triggered and Supreme Court agreed:

“Insurance Law § 3420 (f) (2) was enacted to allow an insured to obtain the same level of protection for himself [or herself] and his [or her] passengers which he [or she] purchased to protect himself [or herself] against liability to others’ ” … . It is well settled that, “[u]nder Insurance Law § 3420 (f) (2), an insured’s [SUM] coverage is triggered when the limit of the insured’s bodily injury liability coverage is greater than the same coverage in the tortfeasor’s policy”… . More particularly, when determining whether SUM coverage is triggered, “[t]he necessary analytical step . . . is to place the insured in the shoes of the tortfeasor and ask whether the insured would have greater bodily injury coverage under the circumstances than the tortfeasor actually has” … , which “requires a comparison of each policy’s bodily injury liability coverage as it in fact operates under the policy terms applicable to that particular coverage” … .

Here, a comparison of the two policies at issue, in light of the circumstances of this case, demonstrates that plaintiff would be afforded greater coverage under his policy than under the tortfeasor’s policy. The tortfeasor’s policy would have provided plaintiff with only $100,000 of coverage for bodily injury, whereas plaintiff’s policy would have provided him with up to $300,000 of coverage for bodily injury. Although plaintiff’s SUM benefits would be reduced by the amount paid to his wife under the policy’s $300,000 per accident maximum, he is still afforded more coverage under his policy than under the tortfeasor’s policy because the bodily injury limit for an accident in which two people are injured would be $200,000 under the tortfeasor’s policy, which is less than the coverage afforded by plaintiff’s policy. Consequently, the SUM provision of plaintiff’s policy was triggered … . Gross v Travelers Ins., 2020 NY Slip Op 04253, Fourth Dept 7-24-20

 

You might also like
THE LEASE REQUIRED THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD TO REPAIR STRUCTURAL DEFECTS IN THE ROOF AND WALLS; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WATER ENTERED THE PREMISES THROUGH DEFECTS IN THE ROOF AND WALLS CAUSING THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION, A CRACK IN THE FLOOR WHICH ALLEGEDLY CONTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF’S INJURY (FOURTH DEPT).
WHERE A NOTE OF ISSUE HAS BEEN FILED BUT IS SUBSEQUENTLY VACATED, THE ACTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3404 (FOURTH DEPT).
CLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY AS COMMERCIAL IN TAX FILINGS DID NOT PRECLUDE THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ONE-OR-TWO-FAMILY HOME EXEMPTION TO LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT HOSPITAL WAS NEGLIGENT IN PLACING HIM IN A ROOM WITH A PERSON WITH COVID; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF THAT PERSON’S MEDICAL RECORDS TO DETERMINE WHEN THE HOSPITAL BECAME AWARE OF THE COVID DIAGNOSIS (FOURTH DEPT).
IN THIS COMMON LAW DISSOLUTION ACTION, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO PAYMENT BY THE CORPORATION OF HIS EXPENSES FOR DEFENDING AGAINST THE CORPORATION’S COUNTERCLAIMS, AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROHIBIT THE DEFENDANTS FROM USING CORPORATE FUNDS TO DEFEND AGAINST THE COMMON LAW DISSOLUTION ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
SMI, A SOLID WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY, RAISED A SEQRA CHALLENGE TO A LOCAL LAW ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SOLID WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY IN THE TOWN OF SENECA FALLS; ALTHOUGH SMI ALLEGED THE NEW FACILITY WOULD CAUSE IT ECONOMIC LOSS, SMI DID NOT ALLEGE IT WOULD SUFFER ENVIRONMENTAL INJURY; THEREFORE SMI DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LOCAL LAW (FOURTH DEPT).
Case Remitted for Determination Whether Defendant Should Be Adjudicated a Youthful Offender/Record Insufficient to Determine Whether Court Erred In Not Disclosing to the Defendant the Written Submissions of the Victims Which Were Reviewed by the Court–Case Remitted to Make an Adequate Record for Review
Termination for Insubordination Proper

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

THE DUPLICITY IN THE INDICTMENT WAS REMEDIED BY DETAILS PROVIDED TO THE DEFENSE... MOTION TO VACATE THE NOTE OF ISSUE AND COMPEL DISCOVERY PROPERLY DENIED; MISAPPROPRIATION...