Insurance Law – New York Appellate Digest

PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER SHE TOOK ADEQUATE STEPS TO LEARN THE IDENTITY OF THE OWNER AND OPERATOR OF THE CAB IN WHICH SHE WAS A PASSENGER WHEN THE CAB WAS STRUCK BY A HIT AND RUN DRIVER; PETITIONER SOUGHT TO COMMENCE AN ACTION AGAINST THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION (MVAIC) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the petition to commence an action against the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC) should not have been denied without a hearing. Petitioner was injured when a hit and run driver struck the cab she was riding in. The issue was whether petitioner took adequate steps to learn the identity of the owner and operator of the cab:

MVAIC was created to compensate innocent victims of hit-and-run motor vehicle accidents … . Insurance Law § 5218 sets forth the procedure for applying to a court for leave to commence an action against MVAIC in a hit-and-run case. “This statute provides, inter alia, that a person may apply to a court for an order permitting an action against MVAIC when, as relevant here, there is a cause of action to recover damages for personal injury arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle, and when the identity of the motor vehicle and of the operator and owner thereof cannot be ascertained” … . “If the court, after a hearing, is satisfied that, inter alia, all reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain the identity of the motor vehicle and of the owner and operator and either the identity of the motor vehicle and the owner and operator cannot be established, then it may issue an order permitting an action against MVAIC” … .

Supreme Court should not have denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding without first having conducted a hearing. * * * Given the efforts made by the petitioner, there are issues of fact as to whether, under the circumstances, her efforts to ascertain the owner and operator of the livery cab were reasonable. Matter of Benalcazar v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 04376, Second Dept 8-23-23

Practice Point: Before the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation could be sued in this traffic accident case, the injured party (petitioner) was required take adequate steps to learn the identity of the owner and operator of the cab in which she was a passenger when the cab was struck by a hit and run driver. The efforts made by petitioner here were sufficient to warrant a hearing on the issue.

August 23, 2023

Attorneys, Civil Procedure, Evidence, Insurance Law, Legal Malpractice, Negligence

IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS WAS NOT “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE;” THE PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE MOTION TO DISMSS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to dismiss in this legal malpractice case should not have been granted because the evidence offered in support of the motion (a letter from the insurer denying coverage and the insurance policy) was not “documentary evidence.” In addition, the Second Department noted that any deficiencies in the complaint were remedied by plaintiff’s affidavit submitted in opposition to the motion to dismiss. The complaint alleged defendant attorneys failed to timely file an action seeking recovery for personal injuries from a disability-insurance carrier:

“‘Whether the complaint will later survive a motion for summary judgment, or whether the plaintiff will ultimately be able to prove its claims, of course, plays no part in the determination of a prediscovery CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss'” … . * * *

“A motion to dismiss on the ground that the action is barred by documentary evidence pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) may be granted only where the documentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff’s factual allegations, [thereby] conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law” … . “[T]o be considered ‘documentary,’ evidence must be unambiguous and of undisputed authenticity” … . “[J]udicial records, as well as documents reflecting out-of-court transactions such as mortgages, deeds, contracts, and any other papers, the contents of which are essentially undeniable, would qualify as documentary evidence in the proper case” … . “Neither affidavits, deposition testimony, nor letters are considered documentary evidence within the intendment of CPLR 3211(a)(1)” … . Maursky v Latham, 2023 NY Slip Op 04115, Second Dept 8-2-23

Practice Point: Irrespective of the possible result of a summary judgment motion, a motion to dismiss which depends on evidence and is not supported by “documentary evidence” will lose.

August 2, 2023

Insurance Law, Negligence

A PARTY INJURED IN A HIT AND RUN TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CANNOT SUE THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION (MVAIC) IF THE PARTY WAS OPERATING AN UNINSURED MOTOR VEHICLE AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT; HERE THE ELECTRIC BIKE PETITIONER WAS OPERATING WAS DEEMED AN UNINSURED MOTOR VEHICLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner was not entitled to sue the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC) for injuries suffered in a hit and run accident because the electric bike petitioner was operating was deemed to be an uninsured motor vehicle:

… [T]he petitioner testified, among other things, that the “electric bike” he was operating at the time of the accident was not equipped with pedals, was powered by an electric battery that must be charged in order for the vehicle to operate, and was “probably” capable of reaching a speed of approximately 30 miles per hour. …

A court may make an order permitting a person injured in a hit-and-run collision to commence an action against MVAIC to recover damages if the court is satisfied that, among other things, “the injured . . . person was not at the time of the accident operating an uninsured motor vehicle” (Insurance Law § 5218[b][3] …). “Uninsured motor vehicle” for purposes of the MVAIC Act is defined by reference to the definition of “motor vehicle” set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 125 (see Insurance Law § 5202[a], [c], [d]). “Motor vehicle” is defined by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 125 as “[e]very vehicle operated or driven upon a public highway which is propelled by any power other than muscular power,” with certain enumerated exceptions.

… MVAIC established as a matter of law that the electric-powered vehicle operated by the petitioner at the time of the accident was an uninsured motor vehicle … . Matter of Jackson v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 03464, Second Dept 6-28-23

Practice Point: A driver injured in a hit and run accident is not entitled to recover from the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC) if the driver was operating an uninsured motor vehicle at the time of the accident. Here the electric bike the injured driver was operating was deemed an uninsured motor vehicle.

June 28, 2023

Civil Procedure, Insurance Law, Negligence

BEFORE SUING A TORTFEASOR’S INSURER, PLAINTIFF MUST OBTAIN A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE TORTFEASOR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant insurer’s motion to dismiss the complaint in this personal injury action should have been granted. The injured plaintiff sued the tortfeasor’s insurer before obtaining a judgment against the tortfeasor (the insured):

Insurance Law § 3420 “grants an injured party a right to sue the tortfeasor’s insurer, but only under limited circumstances—the injured party must first obtain a judgment against the tortfeasor, serve the insurance company with a copy of the judgment and await payment for 30 days” … . Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that the plaintiff lacked standing to commence this action by submitting the complaint, which alleged that the underlying action against [the tortfeasor] “is currently pending.” The complaint is evidence that the plaintiff has not established the condition precedent to maintain a direct action against the defendants (see Insurance Law § 3420[a][2] …). Sizova v Union Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2023 NY Slip Op 03502, Second Dept 6-28-23

Practice Point: A plaintiff must obtain a judgment against the tortfeasor before the tortfeasor’s insurer can be sued.

June 28, 2023

Contract Law, Employment Law, Insurance Law

THE EMPLOYEE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS (NONSOLICITATION AGREEMENTS) WERE PROPERLY ENFORCED; NINE OF DEFENDANT INSURANCE COMPANY’S CUSTOMERS FOLLOWED PLAINITFFS AFTER THEIR TERMIINATION; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, over a two-justice partial dissent, determined the defendant insurance company’s motion for summary judgment enforcing the nonsolicitation agreements were properly granted. Nine of defendant’s former customers followed plaintiffs after their termination from defendant’s employ:

… “[T]he application of the test of reasonableness of employee restrictive covenants focuses on the particular facts and circumstances giving context to the agreement” … . While such agreements are generally not favored, they can be “justified by the employer’s need to protect itself from unfair competition by former employees” … . “The employer has a legitimate interest in preventing former employees from exploiting or appropriating the goodwill of a client or customer, which had been created and maintained at the employer’s expense, to the employer’s competitive detriment” … . Here, when plaintiffs joined defendant’s insurance agency, neither had any prior experience in the insurance field, they were not licensed agents, nor did they have any clients or books of business of their own. As to the clients in question here, they were solicited, developed and serviced by defendant. As such, the accounts and clients are the product of defendant’s efforts, financial expenditures and goodwill, all of which defendant has a legitimate interest in protecting. Davis v Marshall & Sterling, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 03050, Third Dept 6-8-23

Practice Point: Here nine of the employer’s customers followed plaintiffs after their termination. Supreme Court properly enforced the nonsolicitation agreements. There was a two-justice dissent.

June 8, 2023

Contract Law, Insurance Law, Limited Liability Company Law

THE SOLE MEMBER OF AN LLC WHICH OWNS THE PROPERTY HAS AN INSURABLE INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY; AN INSURER WHICH ACCEPTS PAYMENT ON A POLICY AFTER LEARNING OF THE INSURED’S ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATIONS WAIVES THE RIGHT TO RESCIND THE POLICY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined: (1) plaintiff, as the sole member of an LLC which owned the property, had an insurable interest in the property; and (2) defendant’s accepting payment on the policy after defendant was aware of plaintiff’s alleged misrepresentations waived defendant’s right to rescind the policy:

… [A]s the sole owner of the LLC, the plaintiff had an insurable interest in the subject property, since destruction of the subject property would necessarily cause economic detriment to the plaintiff (see Insurance Law § 3401 …).

… “The continued acceptance of premiums by an insurance carrier after learning of sufficient facts which allow for the rescission of the policy, constitutes a waiver of the right to rescind” … . Here, the plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the defendant waived its right to assert the plaintiff’s misrepresentations as a basis for rescinding the policy, since the defendant renewed the policy and accepted a premium payment after it discovered the misrepresentations. Sabharwal v Hyundai Mar. & Fire Ins. Co., Ltd., 2023 NY Slip Op 02690, Second Dept 5-17-23

Practice Point: The sole member of an LLC which owns real property has an insurable interest in the property.

Practice Point: An insurer which accepts payment on a policy after learning of the insured’s alleged misrepresentations waives the right to rescind the policy.

May 17, 2023

Attorneys, Civil Procedure, Evidence, Insurance Law, Negligence

IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE WHERE “SERIOUS INJURY” WAS AN ISSUE, VIDEO SURVEILLANCE OF PLAINTIFF TAKEN BEFORE THE DEPOSITION AND AFTER A DISCOVERY ORDER WAS PRECLUDED FROM BOTH THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE AND TRIAL; THERE IS NO SPECIFIC DEADLINE FOR PROVIDING VIDEO SURVEILLANCE GATHERED AFTER THE DEPOSITION; THE POST-DEPOSITION VIDEO SURVEILLANCE WAS NOT PRECLUDED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, determined that video surveillance of the plaintiff taken prior to the deposition in this traffic accident case, and after a discovery order requiring disclosure of video surveillance had been issued, could not be used in support of a summary judgment motion re: “serious injury” or at trial. However, video surveillance taken after the deposition need not be provided to the plaintiff by any specific deadline and was not precluded:

… [W]e conclude that the defendant’s noncompliance with the plaintiff’s discovery notice and two court orders, over an extended period of time, was willful and strategic with regard to the [pre-deposition] surveillance video. … [T]he defendant should have been precluded from using the … surveillance video of the plaintiff …, as it was not disclosed prior to the plaintiff’s deposition … . * * *

CPLR 3101(i) contains no language prohibiting the acquisition of surveillance video of a party after that party has testified at a deposition. Nor does any decisional authority. Indeed, CPLR 3101(h) recognizes that disclosure is a continuing obligation, requiring parties to amend or supplement discovery responses when later information is obtained that renders an earlier response inaccurate or incomplete when made or when the prior response, though correct and complete when made, is materially no longer so. And parties are not required to be more forthcoming with surveillance videos than they would with any ordinary discovery material under CPLR 3101(a) … .

That said, CPLR 3101(i) provides no fixed deadline for the disclosure of post-deposition surveillance video footage … . Rather, trial courts may regulate issues of timing through their preliminary and compliance conference orders … , subject to their authority and discretion to manage their calendars and determine whether to preclude evidence under CPLR 3126(2) for any noncompliance with court-imposed deadlines … . Pizzo v Lustig, 2023 NY Slip Op 02541, Second Dept 5-10-23

Practice Point: Here surveillance video of the plaintiff which was gathered before the deposition and after a disclosure order was precluded from both the summary judgment stage and the trial. There is no specific deadline for turning over video surveillance of the plaintiff gathered after deposition and that video evidence was not precluded.

May 10, 2023

Arbitration, Insurance Law, Negligence

THE INSURER DID NOT EXPLAIN ITS FAILURE TO TIMELY REQUEST THAT THE INSURED UNDERGO A PHYSICAL EXAM AND AN EXAMINATION UNDER OATH; THE STAY OF ARBITRATION IN THIS UNINSURED MOTORIST BENEFITS DISPUTE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the insurer, GEICO, should not have been granted a stay of arbitration in this uninsured-motorist-benefits dispute with its insured, Eser. GEICO did not explain its failure to timely request a physical exam and an examination under oath (EUO):

GEICO had ample time after being notified of Eser’s claim to seek a medical examination and an examination under oath, but failed to do so. Moreover, it denied the claim, apparently concluding that the medical records were sufficient to determine that Eser did not sustain a serious injury. GEICO offered no excuse for its failure to request a physical examination and an examination under oath. Instead, GEICO represented to the Supreme Court that it had requested the examinations, pointing to [three letters]. Contrary to GEICO’s assertion, however, it did not request examinations in those letters, but, rather, merely advised Eser that if it ultimately determined that the other vehicle was uninsured, it “may require [her] to submit to physical examinations and/or Examination(s) Under Oath” … . Since GEICO had ample time to seek this discovery of Eser, but unjustifiably failed to do so, it was not entitled to a stay of arbitration in order to conduct the examinations … . Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Eser, 2023 NY Slip Op 01999, Second Dept 4-19-23

Practice Point: Here the insurer in this uninsured-motorist-benefits dispute had ample time to request that the insured undergo a physical exam and an examination under oath and did not explain its failure to do so. The stay of arbitration should not have been granted.

April 19, 2023

Contract Law, Insurance Law, Negligence

THE DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO APPEAR AT THE SCHEDULED EXAMINATIONS UNDER OATH BREACHED A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR INSURANCE COVERAGE ENTITLING THE INSURER TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS CAUSE OF ACTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NONCOVERAGE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff insurer was entitled to summary judgment for a declaratory judgment of noncoverage because the defendants did not appear at the scheduled Examinations Under Oath (EUOs):

Plaintiff insurer seeks a declaratory judgment of noncoverage based, among other things, on its allegations that defendants Munoz, Cameron, and Santiago (collectively, the claimants) each breached a condition precedent to coverage by failing to appear for properly noticed Examinations Under Oath (EUOs). In support of its motion for a default judgment against the defaulting defendants, plaintiff demonstrated through admissible evidence that the claimants each breached a condition precedent to coverage by failing to appear for properly and timely noticed EUOs … . The documentary evidence shows that plaintiff sent the EUO scheduling letters to the claimants within 15 business days of receiving the prescribed verification forms (in this case, NF-3 forms), as required … . Contrary to the motion court’s calculation, the 15-day period starts with receipt of the NF-3 forms, not the NF-2 Application for No-Fault Benefits forms … . State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v Soliman, 2023 NY Slip Op 01949, First Dept 4-13-23

Practice Point: Failure to appear for an Examination Under Oath breaches a condition precedent in the insurance contract, entitling the insurer to a declaratory judgment of noncoverage.

April 13, 2023

Contract Law, Insurance Law, Landlord-Tenant, Negligence

IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE MASTER LEASE VIOLATED GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 5-321 WHICH PROHIBITS A LEASE AGREEMENT FROM PROVIDING THE LANDLORD BE INDEMNIFIED FOR LIABILITY FOR THE LANDLORD’S OWN NEGLIGENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in this sidewalk slip and fall case, in a decision too complex to fairly summarize here, determined a provision of the master lease violated General Obligations Law 5-321:

General Obligations Law § 5-321 states that “[e]very covenant, agreement or understanding in or in connection with or collateral to any lease of real property exempting the lessor from liability for damages for injuries to person or property caused by or resulting from the negligence of the lessor, his agents, servants or employees, in the operation or maintenance of the demised premises or the real property containing the demised premises shall be deemed to be void as against public policy and wholly unenforceable.”

The Court of Appeals, in Hogeland v Sibley, Lindsay & Curr Co. (42 NY2d 153 [1977]) and Great N. Ins. Co. v Interior Constr. Corp. (7 NY3d 412 [2006]), established an exception to General Obligations Law § 5-321. Parties to a lease agreement may execute a provision requiring the tenant to indemnify the landlord from the landlord’s own negligence. However, the lease must also contain an insurance provision “allocating the risk of liability to third parties” because “[c]ourts do not, as a general matter, look unfavorably on agreements which, by requiring parties to carry insurance, afford protection to the public” … . Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reasoned that when an indemnity clause is coupled with an insurance procurement provision, a tenant is obligated to indemnify the landlord for its share of liability, and such agreement does not exempt the landlord from liability to the plaintiff, but allocates the risk to a third party through insurance … . Insurance procured by the tenant in satisfaction of the indemnity clause provides the injured plaintiff with adequate recourse for the damages suffered … .

… Article 13 of the master lease requires Regent [the landlord] to be indemnified for all claims “provided however that the same shall not arise from the willful acts of Landlord during the term of this Lease.” On its face, we find that this provision violates General Obligations Law § 5-321. Bessios v Regent Assoc., Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 01583, First Dept 3-23-23

Practice Point: A lease which requires the landlord to be indemnified for its own negligence violates General Obligations Law 5-321 unless the lease also requires the tenant to procure insurance which will compensate the injured party for the landlord’s negligence.

March 23, 2023