Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Court Finds Insurance Covers Fireman in Own Car

This is the issue in a nutshell: If a volunteer firefighter is in an accident while responding to an emergency, and the insurance policy of the car that clobbered him is already exhausted, can he get the benefits of the fire department's own Supplemental Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Endorsement (a/k/a the SUM policy)?

In a matter of first impression, the trial court in American Alternative Insurance v. Pelszynski said yes. The matter came before Suffolk County Supreme Court Justice Mark Cohen when the fireman filed for arbitration on the policy and the insurance carrier brought an action in Supreme Court to stay the proceedings, claiming the fireman's car was not part of the coverage.

Justice Cohen shot down that idea, relying on a New York State Insurance Department informal opinion, dated February 8, 2002, which interpreted the SUM policy as similar to one where a person drives his own car for a business. He wrote that:

The opinion found that an employee of the business operating their own vehicle during the course of employment and while acting within the scope of their duty would be covered under the SUM endorsement.

If the coverage was available to someone in their own car using it for a business, then it should likewise be applicable to the fire department.

If it was the fireman's lawyers that found that insurance department opinion for the judge, then that was some good lawyering by his counsel, Kevin Grennan.

h/t NYLJ ($)

Addendum: More from Roy Mura in the comments and at Coverage Counsel

Labels: Insurance Industry, Supplemental Underinsured Policy (SUM)

posted by Eric Turkewitz
Permanent Link 1 Comments Links to this post

The New York Personal Injury Law Blog is sponsored by its creator, Eric Turkewitz of The Turkewitz Law Firm. The blog might be considered a form of attorney advertising in accordance with New York rules going into effect February 1, 2007 (22 NYCRR 1200.1, et. seq.) As of July 14, 2008, Law.com became an advertiser, as you can see in the sidebar. Law.com does not control the editorial content of the blog in any way.

Throughout the blog as it develops, you may see examples of cases we have handled, or cases from others, that are used for illustrative purposes. Since all cases are different, and legal authority may change from year to year, it is important to remember that prior results in any particular case do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes with respect to any future matter, including yours, in which any lawyer or law firm may be retained.

Some of the commentary may be become outdated. Some might be a minority opinion, or simply wrong. No reader should consider this site (or any other) to be authoritative, and if a legal issue is presented, the reader should contact an attorney of his or her own choosing for advice.

Finally, we are not responsible for the comments of others that may be added to this site.