You are here: / / Police Officer (a Passenger in a Police Car) Who Was Injured by Underinsured...
,

Police Officer (a Passenger in a Police Car) Who Was Injured by Underinsured Driver Was Covered By Police-Officer-Driver’s (Private) Underinsured Motorist Endorsement

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Hall, the Second Department determined that a police car is a “motor vehicle” within the meaning of an uninsured/underinsured motorist endorsement in a [State Farm] policy held by the driver.  The plaintiff, a police officer, was injured in an automobile accident with an underinsured driver. The question was whether the State Farm policy held by the driver of the police car, another police officer, could be financially responsible under the uninsured/underinsured endorsement in the driver’s policy.  The Second Department held that the driver’s underinsured endorsement covered the injured (police-officer) passenger.  The question at issue was whether the exclusion of “police vehicle” from the definition of “motor vehicle” in Vehicle and Traffic Law 388(2) applied.  The court ruled it did not and determined the operative definition of “motor vehicle” in this context was in Vehicle and Traffic Law 125:

Contrary to State Farm’s contention, VTL § 125, instead of VTL § 388(2), should be used to define the term “motor vehicle,” as it appears in the uninsured/underinsured motorist endorsement. VTL § 125 is a general provision that defines the relevant terminology for the entire VTL. In fact, VTL § 388(2) acknowledges this by incorporating by reference the VTL § 125 definition of “motor vehicle.” Additionally, it has been recognized that uninsured motorist coverage extends to all “motor vehicles,” as defined by VTL § 125 (…Insurance Law § 5202[a]…).

Police vehicles fall within the definition of a “motor vehicle” under VTL § 125 because they constitute a “vehicle operated or driven upon a public highway which is propelled by any power other than muscular power,” and they do not fall within any of the exclusions provided in the statute. Thus, the police vehicle at issue here falls within the definition of a “motor vehicle” under the uninsured/underinsured motorist endorsement.  Matter of State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co v Fitzgerald, 2013 NY Slip Op 07186, 2nd Dept 11-6-13

 

You might also like
THE ACTION WAS NOT COMMENCED UNTIL TEN DAYS BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED AND PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL DID NOT TIMELY COMPLETE SERVICE BY MAILING THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT; PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE THE DEFENDANT BECAUSE LAW OFFICE FAILURE PRECLUDED AN EXTENSION FOR GOOD CAUSE AND THE LACK OF DILIGENCE PRECLUDED AN EXTENSION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Denial of Coverage Based Upon Noncooperation of the Insured Party Explained/Default Judgment In Favor of Defendant American States Re: Other Defendants Did Not Preclude, Under the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel, Plaintiff’s Direct Action Against American States
HEARSAY ALONE CANNOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED.
FAMILY COURT’S FINDING THAT FREEING THE CHILD FOR ADOPTION WOULD NOT BE IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTERESTS WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY A SOUND AND SUBSTANTIAL BASIS (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT HIRED BECAUSE HE TESTED POSITIVE FOR MARIJUANA WHEN HE WAS UNDER TREATMENT WITH MARIJUANA; THAT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT PERFORMED A RAP SONG DURING A RECORDED PHONE CALL MADE FROM JAIL; AN INVESIGATOR WAS CALLED AS AN EXPERT TO INTERPRET THE LYRICS; HIS INTERPRETATION MATCHED THE PEOPLE’S FACTUAL THEORY OF THE CASE; BECAUSE THE INVESTIGATOR WAS NOT ADEQUATELY QUALIFIED AS AN EXPERT, DEFENDANT WAS DENIED A FAIR TRIAL (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF SUED A CHURCH ALLEGING THE CHURCH HELD PROPERTY IN TRUST FOR PLAINTIFF AND THE CHURCH WRONGFULLY OUSTED PLAINTIFF FROM THE PROPERTY; RESOLUTION OF THE SUIT WOULD INVOLVE NEUTRAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW, NOT RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES; THEREFORE, THE LAWSUIT WAS NOT PRECLUDED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE OPEN MANHOLE PLAINTIFF DROVE OVER; PLAINTIFF UNSUCCESSFULLY TRIED TO RAISE, FOR THE FIRST TIME, AN EXCEPTION TO THE WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (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

Burden of Proof for Relocation with Child Not Met Failure to Identify Industrial Code Violation in Pleadings Not Fatal/Supervisory...