You are here: / / DUPLICATE COVERAGE PROHIBITION IN SUPPLEMENTAL UNINSURED UNDERINSURED MOTORIST...

DUPLICATE COVERAGE PROHIBITION IN SUPPLEMENTAL UNINSURED UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM) ENDORSEMENT NOT VIOLATED WHERE OVERALL DAMAGES EXCEED AMOUNT WHICH CAN BE RECOVERED FROM SEVERAL TORTFEASORS.

The Second Department determined the “duplicate coverage” prohibition in the supplemental uninsured/underinsured motorist (SUM) endorsement of the GEICO policy did not prevent plaintiff's widow, Maria Sherlock, from proceeding to arbitration seeking coverage under the endorsement. The driver, Maldonado, who struck and killed plaintiff's decedent had a policy with $50,000 coverage. Maldonado's insurer settled for its $50,000 limit. Because the accident occurred during a police chase and the municipality was sued, the municipality's insurer settled for $425,000.  Geico argued any recovery under the SUM endorsement would constitute prohibited duplicate coverage. Maria Sherlock argued the overall damages were in the millions and recovery of difference between the $250,000 SUM limit and the $50,000 paid out under defendant's policy would therefore not be duplicative, even taking into account the $425,000 recovery from the municipality:

The key to a proper understanding of [the duplicate coverage prohibition] is the recognition that “shall not duplicate” is not aimed at preventing an insured from seeking full compensation by combining partial recoveries from several tortfeasors, but at preventing double recoveries for their bodily injuries.

… Sherlock alleged in her request for arbitration that the bodily injury damages are in the millions of dollars. Presumably, if the Maldonado defendants' policy had contained the same $250,000 liability limit that the GEICO policy provided, … Sherlock would have been able to obtain $250,000 from the Maldonado defendants' insurer as well as the $425,000 from the [municipal] defendants' insurer. … Sherlock seeks only, through her claim under the SUM endorsement—for which she paid a premium—to be in the same position she would have been in had the Maldonado defendants not been underinsured relative to the GEICO policy. Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Sherlock, 2016 NY Slip Op 04414, 2nd Dept 6-8-16

INSURANCE LAW (DUPLICATE COVERAGE PROHIBITION IN SUPPLEMENTAL UNINSURED UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM) ENDORSEMENT NOT VIOLATED WHERE OVERALL DAMAGES EXCEED AMOUNT WHICH CAN BE RECOVERED FROM SEVERAL TORTFEASORS)/SUPPLEMENTAL UNINSURED UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM) ENDORSEMENT (DUPLICATE COVERAGE PROHIBITION IN SUPPLEMENTAL UNINSURED UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM) ENDORSEMENT NOT VIOLATED WHERE OVERALL DAMAGES EXCEED AMOUNT WHICH CAN BE RECOVERED FROM SEVERAL TORTFEASORS)/NON-DUPLICATION PROVISION (DUPLICATE COVERAGE PROHIBITION IN SUPPLEMENTAL UNINSURED UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM) ENDORSEMENT NOT VIOLATED WHERE OVERALL DAMAGES EXCEED AMOUNT WHICH CAN BE RECOVERED FROM SEVERAL TORTFEASORS)

You might also like
THE REAR-END CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN PENNSYLVANIA BUT ALL PARTIES RESIDED IN NEW YORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED THAT PENNSYLVANIA LAW APPLIED, BECAUSE THE PARTIES DID NOT RAISE THE CHOICE OF LAW ISSUE THEY ARE DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE APPLICABILITY OF NEW YORK LAW (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Provide Reason for Denial of Youthful Offender Status Required Remittal
DEFENSE COUNSEL, BY TAKING A POSITION ADVERSE TO THAT OF THE DEFENDANT WITH RESPECT TO DEFENDANT’S PRO SE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT, DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
Delay In Coming Forward With Defendant’s Alibi Was a Proper Subject of Cross-Examination After Foundational Requirements Were Met
IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, DEFENDANT DID NOT WAIVE THE LACK OF JURISDICTION DEFENSE BY PARTICIPATING IN THE MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON WHETHER SHE WAS PROPERLY SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
Court Should Not Have Dismissed for “Neglect to Proceed”—Criteria Explained
SERVICE ON AN UNAUTHORIZED FOREIGN CORPORATION DID NOT COMPLY WITH BUSINESS CORPORATION LAW 307, A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT (SECOND DEPT). ​
IF PLAINTIFF MOVED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ACTION TO SET ASIDE A DEED PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE HAD TO PROVE THE DEED WAS FORGED; TO WIN A MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, THE DEFENDANT MUST UTTERLY REFUTE PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATION THE DEED WAS FORGED WHICH DEFENDANT FAILED TO DO HERE (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

JUDGE WAS BIASED AGAINST MOTHER WHO SOUGHT TO PREVENT THE IMMUNIZATION OF HER... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WATER RUNOFF CONSTITUTED TRESPASS AND NUISANCE.