Auto

NJ Court Holds Statutory Insurance Minimums Supersede Stated Policy Coverage Limits

The matter of Rafanello v. Taylor-Esquivel arose out of a multi-vehicle accident involving a commercial dump truck operated by Jorge Taylor-Esquivel and under the control of his employer, NAB Trucking (the truck was leased). Esquivel, however, was not listed in the Covered Driver’s section of NAB’s liability policy. The trial court determined that NAB’s exposure was capped at $35,000 which, in...Read More

Stolen Car or Implied Consent? Look Beyond the Driver’s Seat (NJ)

During a night of imbibing, Galvan-Martinez asked his good friend Munoz for a ride to work the following morning. Munoz responded non-committedly, stating that he would “if he had time.” A few drinks later, Munoz walked home, leaving his keys behind. The next morning Munoz received a phone call from his friend advising that he had driven Munoz’s vehicle to work and been involved in an...Read More

Buckle Up! New York Now Requires All Passengers 16 and Up To Wear Seat Belts

NEW YORK’S NEW SEAT-BELT LAW REQUIRING ALL OCCUPANTS INSIDE A MOTOR-VEHICLE TO BUCKLE UP TAKES EFFECT ON NOVEMBER 1, 2020 https://nypost.com/2020/08/11/new-york-will-now-require-seat-belts-for-all-car-occupants/ On November 1, 2020, New York will become the 30th state to require all occupants inside a vehicle over the age of sixteen to wear seatbelts. The new law will now make it mandatory for...Read More

No Coverage for Negligent Supervision Claim (PA)

In Michele Kahana v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Ins. Co., the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania analyzed whether an auto insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify a claim of negligence per se arising out of an auto accident. The claim was asserted against Kahana, the mother of the minor decedent who was struck while walking alone after midnight while dressed in...Read More

Despite Error, Insurer Escapes Liability for UM/UIM Coverage

In Beach v. The Navigators Ins. Co., No. 1550 MDA 2019 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sept. 11, 2020), the plaintiffs sought UIM coverage under an automobile insurance policy issued to their employer. The dispute centered on the applicable limits of the UIM policy. The question as to the applicable UIM limit arose out of an error the insurer made when renewing the policy at issue. Beaches’ employer sought to...Read More

Keep on Stacking . . . PA Court Declines Insurer’s Request to Deny UIM Benefits (PA)

In Donegal Mutual Insurance Company v. Kevin Krautsack, et al, the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County held that “the household vehicle exclusion violates the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (“MVFRL”); therefore, these exclusions are unenforceable as a matter of law.” The case stems from an accident in which Kevin Krautsack was injured while riding his mother’s motorcycle....Read More

Importance of “Backing Up” Claims in MVA Case (PA)

In Ruffin v. Desh United Corporation et al. plaintiff learned a lesson fit for an evidence course lecture after he appealed the trial court’s decision in his personal injury case. According to plaintiff, he was injured while crossing the street when defendant driver backed into Ruffin with his car. The other defendants in the matter are defendant’s employers. After defendants appealed an...Read More

NYPD’s Hot Pursuit Immunity Has Limitations (NY)

In Fuchs v. City of New York (2020 NY Slip Op 04382), the NYPD was involved in a high-speed pursuit of a suspect. The plaintiff was driving down a one-way street when the suspect turned the wrong way and collided with plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff sued the police department for her injuries and the City of New York claimed a qualified exemption under VTL § 1104 which provides an exemption for...Read More

Pennsylvania Appellate Court Requires New Stacking Waiver After Removal of a Vehicle From Policy (PA)

The Pennsylvania appellate court, in Franks v. State Farm, recently held that insurers must obtain a new stacking waiver after the insured removes a vehicle under the policy. The factual pattern in the instant matter was a matter of first impression for Pennsylvania Courts. Specifically, although it is clear that an addition of a vehicle to an existing multi-vehicle policy requires a new...Read More

PA Court Finds UIM Benefits Not Required Under PA Umbrella Policies

In Jones v Amica Mutual Insurance, the Court recently considered whether an insurer was required to pay UIM benefits under a Personal Umbrella Policy. In the underlying action, Jones filed suit for injuries she sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The adverse driver, Sean Murtha, was responsible for accident. Plaintiff received the $100,000 policy limit from Murtha’s insurer Allstate....Read More