You are here: / / AVILA WAS INJURED WHEN HER SPOUSE LOST CONTROL OF THE CAR AND STRUCK A...
,

AVILA WAS INJURED WHEN HER SPOUSE LOST CONTROL OF THE CAR AND STRUCK A PARKED CAR; THE POLICY EXPRESSLY STATED COVERAGE DID NOT EXTEND TO THE INSURED’S SPOUSE; IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPRESS PROVISION THE INSURER IS NOT REQUIRED TO COVER THE INSURED’S SPOUSE (SECOND DEPT).

he Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the uninsured motorist claim by the driver’s spouse was precluded based on the policy. Avila was a passenger in a vehicle driven by her spouse who lost control of the car:

Pursuant to Insurance Law § 3420(g)(1), “no policy or contract shall be deemed to insure against any liability of an insured because of death of or injuries to his or her spouse or because of injury to, or destruction of property of his or her spouse unless express provision relating specifically thereto is included in the policy.” “‘[I]n the absence of an express provision in an insured’s policy, a carrier is not required to provide insurance coverage for injuries sustained by an insured’s spouse'” … . This provision creates “a statutory presumption that interspousal liability is excluded from coverage unless an express provision relating specifically thereto is included in the policy” … . Moreover, here, the language of GEICO’s policy provides that its liability coverage does not apply “[t]o any insured for bodily injury to the spouse of that insured.” Thus, Avila’s uninsured motorist claim was precluded … . Matter of Government Employees Ins. Co. v Avila, 2024 NY Slip Op 03481, Second Dept 6-26-24

Practice Point: Here the insured, Avila’s spouse, lost control of the car and hit a parked car. Avila was a passenger and was injured. The policy did not include a provision expressly covering the insured’s spouse. In addition, the policy expressly stated the insured’s spouse was not covered. Avila’s uninsured motorist claim was precluded.

 

You might also like
FAILURE TO REQUEST THAT THE JURY BE CHARGED ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AMOUNTED TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, THE EVIDENCE OF THE CHARGED OFFENSE WAS WEAK, THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE WAS PLAUSIBLE, AND THE SENTENCING DISPARITY WAS ENORMOUS (SECOND DEPT).
COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE REQUEST FOR A CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION JURY INSTRUCTION, THE COURT OF APPEALS CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION RULING IN PEOPLE V BOONE APPLIES RETROACTIVELY, HOWEVER THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint a Temporary Administrator after Defendant’s Death Properly Denied—Relevant Law Explained
COMPLAINT DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE DEFENDANT HAD WAIVED THE REQUIREMENT OF WRITTEN NOTICE TO EXERCISE THE OPTION TO RENEW THE LEASE, PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT WAS PALPABLY WITHOUT MERIT, MOTION TO AMEND WAS NOT FRIVOLOUS CONDUCT WARRANTING SANCTIONS (SECOND DEPT).
THE NEW YORK CITY CIVILIAN COMPLAINT REVIEW BOARD (CCRB) IS NOT ENTITLED TO UNSEAL THE RECORD OF THE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AND TRIAL OF AN OFF-DUTY POLICE OFFICER WHO SHOT A MAN IN A ROAD RAGE INCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT LANDLORD’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD TRANSFERRED RESPONSIBILITY FOR SNOW AND ICE REMOVAL IN THE AREA OF THE FALL TO PLAINTIFF TENANT AND WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE RECURRING COLLECTION OF WATER AND ICE IN THE AREA OF THE FALL (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS DISPUTE BETWEEN PLAINTIFF BEER DISTRIBUTORS AND DEFENDANT BEER COMPANY, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HELD THAT ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL ACT SECTION 55-C(4), WHICH PROHIBITS TERMINATION OF A DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITHOUT GOOD CAUSE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO CURE, APPLIES TO BOTH WRITTEN AND ORAL CONTRACTS; THE COURT WENT ON TO FIND THAT THE COMPLAINT, WHICH WAS BASED ON AN ORAL DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT, DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF SECTION 55-C(4) (SECOND DEPT).
COLLEGE DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO TWO STUDENTS WHO DIED IN A FIRE IN THE OFF-CAMPUS HOUSE THEY WERE RENTING (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

IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, PLAINTIFF STEPPED ON A SMALL WOODEN “PATCH”... IN THIS GROUNDWATER POLLUTION CASE, THE POLLUTION EXCLUSION IN THE INSURERS’...