You are here: / / Single Use of Vehicle to Carry Passengers “For Hire” Did Not...

Single Use of Vehicle to Carry Passengers “For Hire” Did Not Justify Excluding Vehicle from Coverage Under the “For Hire” Exclusion

The Second Department determined that an insurer, GEICO, was not justified in disclaiming coverage of a vehicle under a “for hire” exclusion.  The evidence demonstrated, at most, that the vehicle was carrying passengers “for hire” on one occasion only (at the time of the accident), and was therefore not subject to the “for hire” exclusion:

Pursuant to regulations issued by New York State Department of Financial Services, an insurer may exclude, from an automobile owner’s policy of liability insurance, coverage for claims arising “while the motor vehicle is used as a public or livery conveyance” (11 NYCRR 60-1.2[a]). GEICO’s disclaimer was based on an exclusion contained in its policy relating to “any vehicle used to carry passengers or goods for hire [except a] vehicle used in an ordinary carpool on a ride sharing or cost sharing basis.” Exclusions from coverage are “construed strictly against the insurer” … . In accordance with this rule of strict construction, a “single use of a vehicle for hire has been held not to make out use as a public livery or conveyance'” … . The facts adduced at the hearing warranted the conclusion that, while GEICO’s insured might have been employing his mini-van to transport a passenger “for hire” at the time of the accident, his use of the vehicle for such purpose entailed a “single isolated use” that was “not tantamount to its employment as a public or livery conveyance'” … . Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v Byfield, 2015 NY Slip Op 01805, 2nd Dept 3-4-15

You might also like
MERCHANDISE RACK IN THE AISLE OF DEFENDANT STORE WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS (SECOND DEPT).
Superior Court Information Jurisdictionally Defective—It Did Not Include Any Offense (or Any Lesser-Included) Which Was in the Original Felony Complaint
IN THE FACE OF EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF DID NOT INTEND TO ABANDON THE ACTION, IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO MEET THE DEADLINE FOR FILING A NOTE OF ISSUE (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY AT THE TIME OF THE COLLISION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT.
Action for a Declaratory Judgment Must Be Based Upon a Concrete Dispute, Not the Mere Possibility of Prejudice—Complaint Properly Dismissed
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, A RADIOLOGIST, DID NOT INDICATE FAMILIARITY WITH THE STANDARD OF CARE FOR ORTHOPEDIC SURGEONS, SURGEON-DEFENDANTS PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
PARTY WHO SIGNS A DOCUMENT WITHOUT READING IT IS CONCLUSIVELY BOUND BY ITS TERMS.
HERE THE MEDICAL RECORDS SUGGESTED INJURY ATTRIBUTABLE TO MEDICAL MALPRACTICE SO THE HOSPITAL WAS DEEMED TO HAVE HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE NATURE OF THE MALPRACTICE CLAIM; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM THE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY SERVED NUNC PRO TUNC SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

Longevity-Pay Grievance Not Arbitrable Under Terms of Collective Bargaining... Current Builder Acquired a Vested Right to Variances Issued to Original Bui...