You are here: / Insurance Law
, , ,

PURSUANT TO THE MANDATORY VICTIMS RESTITUTION ACT (MVRA), A LIEN BASED UPON A RESTITUTION ORDER IN A CRIMINAL CASE CAN BE ENFORCED BY THE PRIVATE CRIME VICTIM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a comprehensive full-fledged opinion by Justice Christopher, determined that a lien based on a restitution order pursuant to the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) can be enforced by the crime victim. Here an insurance company (National Union), which presumably paid the restitution to the crime victim, was substituted for the victim:

This appeal provides an opportunity to examine 18 USC § 3664(m)(1)(B) of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (hereinafter the MVRA), wherein we determine that a crime victim named in a restitution order who has obtained an abstract of judgment and, as in this case, has docketed and recorded that abstract in accordance with the rules of this state may enforce that lien pursuant to this state’s laws. For the reasons that follow, we hold that section 3664(m)(1)(B) provides a mechanism by which a private victim may enforce such a lien, and that the Supreme Court erred when it … determined that the victim was limited to only recording the abstract of judgment as a lien and dismissed the petition of National Union Fire Insurance Company … (hereinafter National Union) … pursuant to CPLR 404(a) and 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action. * * *

Our review of the legislative history of the MVRA … supports our conclusion that pursuant to 18 USC § 3664(m)(1)(B), once a victim named in a restitution order has obtained a lien on the property of the defendant, the victim may enforce that lien. * * *

The petition and documentary evidence demonstrated that in accordance with 18 USC § 3664(m)(1)(B), National Union obtained an abstract of judgment of the restitution order at issue from the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which was docketed with the Westchester County Clerk (see CPLR 5018[c]), and thus, had an enforceable lien on [the criminal defendant’s] property … . Therefore, the petition sufficiently alleges that National Union is a judgment creditor permitted to commence this proceeding pursuant to CPLR 5206(e). Matter of National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa, 2023 NY Slip Op 05503, Second Dept 11-1-23

Practice Point: A lien against a criminal defendant’s property based on a restitution order can, pursuant to the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA), be enforced by the crime victim.

 

THE UNIVERSAL LIFE INSURANCE POLICY AT ISSUE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO INSURANCE LAW 3203(A)(2) WHICH REQUIRES A PROPORTIONAL REFUND WHEN THE INSURED DIES DURING THE PREMIUM PERIOD (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, answering a certified question from the Second Department, determined that the universal life policy at issue was not subject to Insurance Law 3203(a)(2) which requires a proportional refund of a paid life insurance premium when the insured dies during the period covered by the premium. Universal life policies are substantively different from term or whole life policies. The court explained the unique aspects of universal life insurance:

Universal life insurance is distinct from term and whole life insurance. To maintain coverage under a term or whole life policy, the policyholder must pay fixed, periodic premiums. A universal life insurance policy does not have a fixed premium—instead, the policyholder can make a payment in any amount, at any time, subject to certain conditions specified in the policy. These payments are deposited in a “cash value account,” also known as a “policy account,” an interest-earning account administered by the insurer. The insurer deducts from the policy account the cost of insurance (COI), which varies from month to month based on variables including the insurer’s total exposure, any administrative fees, and other required payments from the policy account. The remaining funds in the policy account can grow tax-free over time based on an interest rate set by the insurer and can fund future deductions. Universal life insurance policyholders can typically add funds to the policy account at any time and in any amount. Policyholders often choose—but are not required—to pay a “planned premium,” which is a periodic payment often designed, but not guaranteed, to keep the policy in force. A failure to pay a planned premium does not result in termination or lapse of the policy so long as the funds in the policy account are sufficient to cover the deductions. Depending on the terms of the specific policy, the policyholder may also be able to withdraw funds or take loans against the policy value as long as sufficient funds remain to cover the deductions. Nitkewicz v Lincoln Life & Annuity Co. of N.Y., 2023 NY Slip Op 05302, CtApp 10-19-23

Practice Point: Here the universal life insurance policy was not subject to Insurance Law 3202(a)(2) which requires a proportional refund of the premium when the insured dies during the premium period.

Practice Point: The unique aspects of a universal life insurance policy versus a term or whole life policy clearly explained.

 

, , ,

PETITIONER-PEDESTRIAN ESTABLISHED THE IDENTITY OF THE DRIVER WHO STRUCK HER COULD NOT BE ASCERTAINED THROUGH REASONABLE EFFORTS; THEREFORE SHE COULD SUE THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION (MVAIC) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner-pedestrian demonstrated the driver who violated the Vehicle and Traffic Law, struck her and fled the scene could not be identified. Therefore she was entitled to sue the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC). The court noted that, although petitioner relied on a hearsay police report, the report could be considered because the MVAIC also relied on it:

Petitioner alleged that on March 4, 2021, she was injured as a pedestrian in the crosswalk after a two-motor-vehicle collision between a BMW and Cadillac. The police report stated that petitioner was struck by the Cadillac after its driver disobeyed a traffic light and collided with the BMW, and the driver of the Cadillac subsequently fled from the scene by foot. The police later discovered that the Cadillac’s license plate did not match the vehicle.

… [P]etitioner proffered … a police accident report pertaining to the incident, a letter from the BMW’s insurer disclaiming coverage on the ground that its insured driver did not disobey any traffic law, and a sworn Notice of Intention to Make a Claim (Notice of Intention) attesting that the Cadillac’s driver was unknown, and the vehicle had a fake license plate. … [T]hese documents were sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Insurance Law § 5218 to commence an action against MVAIC … . Petitioner met her burden of demonstrating that the subject accident was one in which the identity of the owner and operator of the Cadillac was not ascertainable through reasonable efforts … . Although a police report is generally inadmissible as hearsay, MVAIC also relied on it in opposing the petition, and thus it may be considered in support of the Notice of Intention .. . Matter of Richardson v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 04950, Second Dept 10-3-23

Practice Point: This decision gives some insight into the proof required to demonstrate the identity of a driver involved in an accident cannot be ascertained, clearing the way for a suit against the MVAIC.

 

, ,

THE POLICE OFFICER INJURED IN THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT AND THE CITY SEEKING RECOVERY OF PAYMENTS MADE STEMMING FROM THE OFFICER’S INJURY MUST SHARE THE $100,000 “PER PERSON” INSURANCE-POLICY LIMIT (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the police officer injured in a car accident and the city suing for payments made for the officer’s salary and medical expenses had to share the $100,000 “per person”  policy-limit in the Safeco insurance policy:

… [T]here is a $100,000 policy limit for “each person” sustaining bodily injury. The policy provides that the limit of bodily injury liability for “each person” is the “maximum limit of liability for all damages, including damages for care, loss of services or death, resulting from any one auto accident” for bodily injury not resulting in death of “any one person” (emphasis added). The City here asserted a claim against the tortfeasors pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-c (6), which creates a cause of action for municipalities for reimbursement of “such sum or sums actually paid as salary or wages and or for medical treatment and hospital care as against any third party against whom the police officer shall have a cause of action for the injury sustained or sickness caused by such third party.” The municipality’s right to recover “is derived from its insured employee’s cause of action in negligence against the person causing such injury,” and the “right to bring the direct action is bottomed on the employee’s cause of action in negligence” … . … [T]he City’s statutory claim and plaintiff’s claim both result from the injuries sustained by plaintiff and are both included in the same $100,000 per person limit of liability in the policy … . Lewczyk v Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 2023 NY Slip Op 04867, Fourth Dept 9-29-23

Practice Point: Here, pursuant to the unambiguous terms of the insurance policy, the police officer injured in a traffic accident and the city seeking recovery of the related salary and medical-expense payments must share the $100,000 “per person” insurance-policy limit.

 

, ,

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.

 

, , , , ,

​ 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.

 

,

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.

 

, ,

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.

 

, ,

​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.

 

, ,

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.

 

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