Buckner v. Motor Vehicle Acc. Indemnification Corp.
| Decision Date | 19 November 1985 |
| Citation | 486 N.E.2d 810,66 N.Y.2d 211,495 N.Y.S.2d 952 |
| Parties | , 486 N.E.2d 810 Robert BUCKNER, Jr., Respondent, v. MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION, Respondent, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
A policy of insurance issued to a corporation does not provide uninsured motorist coverage for the son of the officers and sole shareholders of the corporation, who resides with them and who was injured when struck by a hit-and-run driver while riding his bicycle. The order of the Appellate Division, 107 A.D.2d 1031, 486 N.Y.S.2d 496, should, therefore, be reversed, with costs, and the order and judgment of Supreme Court, Oneida County, should be reinstated.
Buckner Associates, Inc. is a family owned real estate business. Plaintiff Robert Buckner is a college student who resides with his parents, both of whom are officers of the corporation and who together own all of its outstanding stock. Plaintiff is a college student who performs some part-time work for the corporation. At the time he was injured, however, plaintiff was riding his bicycle and was not engaged in any business of the corporation. He was struck by a hit-and-run driver.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company issued to Buckner Associates, Inc. a business automobile policy providing liability insurance, personal injury protection, medical payments insurance and uninsured motorist insurance. Plaintiff's application to Liberty Mutual for first-party benefits was denied on the ground that plaintiff was not within the coverage of the policy. Plaintiff then applied to the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC). Arbitration having resulted in a determination that plaintiff was either an "eligible injured person" within the meaning of the personal injury (no-fault) protection or a "qualified person" entitled to MVAIC benefits, plaintiff began a declaratory judgment action against both Liberty Mutual and MVAIC.
Special Term granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment against MVAIC, denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment against Liberty Mutual, granted Liberty Mutual's cross motion to dismiss the complaint and MVAIC's cross claim against it and entered judgment declaring plaintiff to be a qualified person within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5202 and entitled to benefits against MVAIC. The Appellate Division reversed and granted judgment declaring plaintiff an insured person under the Liberty Mutual policy, reasoning that the references in its uninsured motorist endorsement to "You or any family member" and other references in the policy to relatives and family created an ambiguity which required that the policy be construed against the issuing carrier. We disagree and now reverse.
Whether the policy covers plaintiff turns on a reading of the entire policy, not just a part of the uninsured motorist endorsement. Only if it can reasonably be said on a reading of the policy as a whole that the words, appearing in that endorsement would be so understood by the average person applying common speech (Lewis v. Ocean Acc. & Guar. Corp., 224 N.Y. 18, 21, 120 N.E. 56) can it be held that Liberty Mutual is obligated to cover such injuries.
Considered with respect to the uninsured motorist endorsement alone, such a construction appears unreasonable, for it defines "family member" as "a person related to you by blood, marriage or adoption who is a resident of your household," and "it is obvious, even to a casual reader, that the insured was to be a corporation which could not possibly have personal injuries or family" (Dixon v. Gunter, 636 S.W.2d 437, 441 accord, Kaysen v. Federal Ins. Co., 268 N.W.2d 920, 923 Pearcy v. Travelers Indem. Co., 429 So.2d 1298 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis
...S.C. 506, 498 S.E.2d 865; Grain Dealers Mut. Ins. Co. v. McKee (Tex. 1997), 943 S.W.2d 455; Buckner v. Motor Vehicle Acc. Indemn. Corp. (1985), 66 N.Y.2d 211, 495 N.Y.S.2d 952, 486 N.E.2d 810; Foote v. Royal Ins. Co. of Am. (1998), 88 Hawaii 122, 962 P.2d 1004; Am. States Ins. Co. v. C & G ......
-
American Economy Ins. Co. v. Bogdahn
...N.M. law); Royal Ins. v. Bennett, 226 A.D.2d 1074, 642 N.Y.S.2d 125 (N.Y.App.Div. 1996); Buckner v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indem. Corp., 66 N.Y.2d 211, 495 N.Y.S.2d 952, 486 N.E.2d 810 (1985); Sproles v. Greene, 329 N.C. 603, 407 S.E.2d 497 (1991); Busby v. Simmons, 103 N.C.App. 592, 406 S.......
-
Grossberg v. Travelers Indem. Co. of America
...924 (Minn.1978); Cutter v. Maine Bonding and Cas., 133 N.H. 569, 579 A.2d 804, 806 (1990); Buckner v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indem. Corp., 66 N.Y.2d 211, 495 N.Y.S.2d 952, 486 N.E.2d 810, 812 (1986); Sproles v. Greene, 329 N.C. 603, 407 S.E.2d 497, 500 (1991); Am. Econ. Ins. Co. v. Bogdahn,......
-
Morette v. Kemper, Unitrin Auto & Home Ins. Co.
...motorist coverage to a family member of the sole shareholders of the corporation ( Buckner v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, 66 N.Y.2d 211, 495 N.Y.S.2d 952, 486 N.E.2d 810; Gallaher v. Republic Franklin Insurance Co., 70 A.D.3d 1359, 896 N.Y.S.2d 274; Siragusa v. Grani......