410_C225
UNLISTED
STUDENT STILL PART OF DRIVER HOUSEHOLD
|
Personal Automobile |
Insured Status |
|
Uninsured Motorists |
Notice of Loss |
In February 2003, Alexandra
Waldron was a passenger on a motorcycle when the motorcycle stuck an automobile
that crossed into its lane. Alexandra sustained serious injuries. At the time
of the accident, Alexandra was a 22-year-old college student. Her father,
William Waldron had a $300,000 New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company (Central
Mutual) supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorists insurance contract that
he had purchased through Knox Insurance Agency, Inc. Alexandra was not listed
on the policy as a member of the household.
In late April 2003, William
contacted the Knox agency to inform it of the accident, but indicated that he
did not want to file a claim with New York Central at the time. Later, in July,
Waldron advised Knox to go ahead and file a claim. New York Central denied the
claim, stating that notice of the claim was untimely and that Alexandra was not
an insured under the policy. The Waldrons filed a
declaratory judgment action asking the court to find that Alexandra was
entitled to coverage and alleging negligence and breach of contract on the part
of the insurer and agency. The lower court found in favor of Central Mutual;
the Waldrons appealed.
On appeal, the Supreme
Court of New York, Appellate Division, Third Department first addressed the
issue of whether Waldron’s April communication constituted timely notice. The
New York Central policy required notice of the accident be
given as soon as reasonably practicable, but no more than 30 days after the
accident absent proof justifying the delay. At the time of the accident,
Alexandra was in
The supplementary
uninsured/underinsured motorist provision of the policy required notice of a
SUM claim “as soon as practicable” which meant “with reasonable promptness
after the insured knew or should reasonably have known that the tortfeasor was underinsured [or uninsured].” The court
noted that on the accident police report, the section for the driver’s
insurance information was blank and that the absence of this information could
constitute notice of a potential SUM claim.
The court also stated that, even if this notice did not constitute
notice of a potential SUM claim, New York Central did not establish that it was
prejudiced by the delay.
After establishing that
there was enough evidence to support a finding of a factual issue as to notice,
the court addressed New York Central’s argument that
Alexandra was not covered under the policy because she was not a resident of
her parent’s household at the time of the accident. The court was not persuaded by the insurer’s
argument. Although Alexandra rented an apartment on campus, she maintained a
bedroom in her parents’ home, kept clothing there, and visited on weekends and
holidays. Her parents’ address was considered to be her address for voting and
tax purposes, and the college used her parents’ address as Alexandra’s
permanent address. The court concluded that this evidence could support a
finding that Alexandra was a resident of her parent’s home at the time of the
accident.
The decision of the lower
court was reversed.
Waldron vs. New York
Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company-Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third
Department, New York-May 5, 2011-2011 WL 1677237 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.)