From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Allstate Insurance Company v. Hager

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 20, 1993
199 A.D.2d 383 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

December 20, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Orange County (Miller, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The respondent claimant and two friends were walking along a road when an automobile struck and injured them. The petitioner Allstate Insurance Company (hereinafter Allstate) had insured the claimant's father under an automobile policy having bodily injury coverage limits of $250,000 per person and $500,000 per accident. In contrast, the tortfeasor-driver had a single limit policy of $300,000 with Covenant Insurance Company. The tortfeasor offered to settle the case, providing $95,000 to the claimant and $95,000 and $110,000, respectively, to his two friends. Thereafter, the claimant claimed underinsurance benefits under his father's Allstate policy. Allstate commenced the instant proceeding to stay arbitration asserting that the claimant had no underinsured motorist claim because the tortfeasor's combined policy limit of $300,000 exceeded the Allstate's policy limit of $250,000. The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding that the $500,000 per accident limit in the Allstate policy exceeded the tortfeasor's policy limit of $300,000, therefore, the tortfeasor's vehicle was underinsured. We agree.

The determination of whether a vehicle is underinsured is made by comparing the bodily injury limits of the claimant's insurance policy with the bodily injury limits of the tortfeasor's policy (see, Insurance Law § 3420 [f] [2]; Maurizzio v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 73 N.Y.2d 951, 953; Matter of Prudential Prop. Cas. Co. [Szeli], 193 A.D.2d 748; Matter of Automobile Ins. Co. v Stillway, 165 A.D.2d 572; Matter of Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v Freda, 156 A.D.2d 364, 365). If the bodily injury limits of the tortfeasor's policy are, as here, less than those of the claimant's policy, then the claimant may assert an underinsurance claim (see, Maurizzio v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., supra; Matter of Prudential Prop. Cas. Co. [Szeli], supra).

We find that the Supreme Court properly determined that the tortfeasor's coverage of $300,000 was less than the claimant's over-all policy limit of $500,000. Therefore, the tortfeasor's vehicle was underinsured. Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Allstate Insurance Company v. Hager

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 20, 1993
199 A.D.2d 383 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Matter of Allstate Insurance Company v. Hager

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. MARK HAGER…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 20, 1993

Citations

199 A.D.2d 383 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
605 N.Y.S.2d 310

Citing Cases

Windsor Insurance v. Judd

They insist that any other construction of the policy would render meaningless the per accident coverage. In…

Jones v. Peerless Insurance Company

We agree. We conclude, therefore, that Supreme Court erred in determining that the appropriate comparison is…