Mutual Fire Insurance Company (New York Central) is obligated to
provide plaintiff with coverage, defense, and indemnification for an
August 29, 2021 car accident where he negligently injured his wife. New
York Central moved for an order granting summary judgment dismissing
plaintiff's complaint and for a declaratory judgment declaring that it
is not obligated to provide plaintiff with a defense or indemnification
for the motor vehicle accident that is alleged to have occurred onAugust
29, 2021, as no Supplemental Spousal Liability coverage exists for this
claim.
In Eric Levy v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Index
No. 66227/2021, 2023 NY Slip Op 23183, the New York Court found in favor
of the insurer.
FACTUAL AND RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On August 29, 2021, while driving his car, plaintiff accidentally struck
his wife Lisa Grauer (Grauer), and Grauer allegedly suffered serious
including a fracture. At the time of the accident, plaintiff had an
active motor-vehicle insurance policy through New York Central with
bodily-injury liability limits of $250,000.00 per person injured. Grauer
filed a claim against plaintiff to New York Central, alleging that she
was injured as a result of plaintiff's negligence.
Plaintiff alleged that New York Central is liable for breach of contract
in the amount of $250,000.00 for failing to provide plaintiff with
coverage, a defense and indemnification. Plaintiff moved for summary
judgment on his amended complaint and is requesting a declaratory
judgment, as set forth in the first cause of action. Plaintiff submitted
an affidavit, describing the events that transpired and alleges that he
was not provided with proper notice of SSL coverage.
New York Central avered that no SLL coverage exists for plaintiff's
policy, that it did comply with all notification requirements, and that
plaintiff declined to purchase SLL coverage. New York Central issued a
revised renewal policy adding an additional vehicle and included an SSL
endorsement. The additional premium for the SSL coverage was $78.00 and
plaintiff declined to purchase it.
Supplemental spousal liability insurance provides bodily injury
liability coverage under a motor vehicle insurance policy to cover the
liability of an insured spouse because of the death of or injury to his
or her spouse, even where the injured spouse must prove the culpable
conduct of the insured spouse.
DISCUSSION
Insurance Law ยง 3420 (g) was amended by Chapter 584 of the Laws of 2002,
to require insurance carriers to offer their insureds supplemental
spousal liability (SSL) insurance for an additional premium.
Since Plaintiff declined to purchase the SLL an insurer is not required
to provide insurance coverage for injuries sustained by an insured's
spouse.
It was undisputed that plaintiff did receive notification of the
availability of the supplementary spousal liability insurance, and he
refused to pay the extra $78 premium.
Accordingly, it was ordered that plaintiff Eric Levy's motion was denied
it its entirety. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company's cross
motion for an order granting summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's
complaint and for a declaratory judgment, is granted; and it was further
ordered that defendant New York Central, because, as no Supplemental
Spousal Liability coverage existed; and it was further ordered that the
case was dismissed, and the Clerk was directed to enter judgment
accordingly.
ZALMA OPINION
Insurers do not like, because of the potential for fraud, to insure
against injury to a family member of the insured. New York passed a law
requiring insurers to provide coverage for injury caused to a spouse as
long as the insured pays an additional premium. Mr. Levy refused to pay
the extra $78 and, by so doing, refused the coverage that only after the
accident he wanted. No luck since he got the offer and the charge and
refused it.
