You are here: / / Police Vehicles Are Excluded from the Meaning of “Motor Vehicle”...
, ,

Police Vehicles Are Excluded from the Meaning of “Motor Vehicle” in the Insurance Law—Passenger-Police-Officer Injured In a Police Vehicle by an Uninsured/Underinsured Driver Is Not Covered Under the Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Provision of the Police-Officer-Driver’s Personal Policy

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam, over a dissent, determined that a police vehicle is not a motor vehicle within the meaning of the Insurance Law. Therefore a police officer, who was injured in a police vehicle driven by another police officer, could not recover under the police-officer-driver’s uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage in the driver’s personal insurance policy:

… Insurance Law §§ 3420 (e) and 3420 (f) (1) do not directly define “motor vehicle” in so many words, but Insurance Law § 3420 (e) does refer to “a motor vehicle or a vehicle as defined in [VTL 388 (2)].” VTL 388 is the sole provision of VTL article 11, which governs civil liability for negligence in the operation of vehicles. VTL 388 (2) states, “As used in this section, ‘vehicle’ means a ‘motor vehicle’, as defined in [VTL 125], except fire and police vehicles,” and certain other vehicles not relevant here (see VTL 388 [2]).  * * *

… [B]ecause the liability insurance provision of Insurance Law § 3420 (e) had traditionally dovetailed with the coverage of VTL 388 and its predecessors, Insurance Law § 3420 (e) employed the phrase “of a motor vehicle or of a vehicle as defined in [VTL 388]” as an imprecise way of incorporating the limitations of VTL 388 into Insurance Law § 3420 (e). In other words, Insurance Law § 3420 (e) used VTL 388 (2) to redefine “motor vehicle” as exempting police vehicles from the automobile insurance sections of Insurance Law § 3420. Given that the uninsured motorist and SUM coverage sections of Insurance Law § 3420 had originated as outgrowths designed to simply fill the uninsured or underinsured motorist “gaps” in the compulsory insurance statute and Insurance Law § 3420 (e), rather than to expand the class of covered vehicles, the Court rightly decided that Insurance Law §§ (f) (1) and (f) (2) logically applied to the limited category of “motor vehicles” referenced in Insurance Law § 3420 (e), thus also excluding police vehicles. Since SUM coverage under Insurance Law § 3420 (f) (2) was just a variant of uninsured coverage under subsection (f) (1) of the same statute, the Court appropriately found that SUM coverage was likewise limited to non-police vehicles. Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Fitzgerald, 2015 NY Slip Op 05626, CtApp 7-1-15

 

You might also like
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON THE GROUND THAT PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY CONTRADICTED THE CONCLUSIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT (CT APP). ​
Daily Incidents of Molestation, Spanning Years, Constituted “Separate Occurrences” Triggering a Deductible for Each Policy-Period
Harmless Error Rule Should Not Have Been Applied to Guilty Plea
PLAINTIFF BROUGHT AN EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION ACTION IN FEDERAL COURT; DEFENDANTS WERE AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE FEDERAL ACTION; BECAUSE THE FEDERAL COURT DID NOT EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S NYS AND NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF PURSUED THEM IN STATE COURT; HOWEVER ALL THE STATE ISSUES HAD BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE FEDERAL ACTION; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL PRECLUDED THE STATE ACTION (CT APP).
SIX TOWN OF NEWBURGH VOTERS CHALLENGEDTHE TOWN’S AT-LARGE ELECTION SYSTEM UNDER THE VOTER DILUTION STATUTE WHICH PROHIBITS THE DILUTION OF VOTES OF MEMBERS OF A PROTECTED CLASS, HERE BLACKS AND HISPANICS; THE TOWN RESPONDED WITH A CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO THE VOTER DILUTION STATUTE; THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THE TOWN, A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY CREATED BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE, COULD NOT CHALLENGE A STATE STATUTE AS FACIALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL (CT APP).
EXPERT TESTIMONY ON FALSE CONFESSION AND CROSS-RACIAL IDENDITIFICATION/MISIDENTIFICATION PROPERLY PRECLUDED; THREE-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP).
TWO PRIOR POSSESSION OF A WEAPON INCIDENTS IN 2006 AND 2007, WHERE DEFENDANT CLAIMED THE WEAPONS BELONGED TO ANOTHER AND HE WAS UNAWARE OF THEIR PRESENCE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED UNDER MOLINEUX IN THIS 2017 POSSESSION OF A WEAPON PROSECUTION, WHERE DEFENDANT CLAIMED THEY WERE PLACED IN THE VEHICLE BY ANOTHER WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE; THERE WAS A CONCURRENCE AND A THREE-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP). ​
THE EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE ASSAULT SECOND CONVICTION (CT APP).

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

In the Context of a Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss, the Statute of Frauds Barred... Parents of Children in Public Schools Had Standing to Seek Court Review of the...