Butler v. NEW YORK CENTRAL MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY
| Citation | 274 A.D.2d 924,711 N.Y.S.2d 607 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
| Decision Date | 27 July 2000 |
| Parties | DAVID B. BUTLER, as Successor Executor of ETHEL M. SOUTHARD, Deceased, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>NEW YORK CENTRAL MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. |
Ethel M. Southard was seriously injured in a two-car motor vehicle accident on November 27, 1996 in which her 96-year-old mother, riding as a passenger in her car, was killed. In March 1997 Southard, individually and as administrator of her mother's estate, commenced a negligence action against the driver of the other motor vehicle involved in the accident seeking damages for her injuries and her mother's wrongful death. Southard's claim was eventually settled for $25,000, the policy limit of the other vehicle, and the claim for the wrongful death of her mother was settled for $30,000. After Southard passed away, plaintiff brought this action seeking benefits under Southard's supplemental uninsured motorist (SUM) endorsement to her automobile liability insurance policy issued by defendant, which had a $50,000 liability limit. Defendant moved for summary judgment arguing that the $55,000 in settlements paid by the liability carrier for the other vehicle exceeded the SUM policy limit of $50,000 and precluded the payment of any SUM benefit to Southard. Supreme Court granted the motion finding defendant's interpretation of the offset provisions of the SUM endorsement clear, unambiguous and dispositive. Plaintiff now appeals.
The policy section which establishes the parameters for SUM payments reads as follows:
Defendant argues that the term insured set out in paragraph 6 (b) refers to both Southard and her mother, requiring the settlement sums of both insureds (totaling $55,000) to be applied as offsets to the SUM limit of $50,000, thereby eliminating SUM benefits. Plaintiff argues that defendant's maximum payment under the SUM endorsement is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ceres Envtl. Servs., Inc. v. Arch Specialty Ins. Co.
...Arch's obligations under the Policy are unclear, such ambiguity inures to Ceres's benefit. See, e.g., Butler v. N.Y. Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 274 A.D.2d 924, 711 N.Y.S.2d 607, 609 (2000). And, consistent with its duty to defend, Arch retained the right to select counsel to defend Ceres in ......
-
City of Elmira v. Selective Ins. Co. of N.Y.
...‘focuses on the reasonable expectations of the average insured upon reading the policy’ “ ( Butler v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 274 A.D.2d 924, 925–926, 711 N.Y.S.2d 607 [2000], quoting Matter of Mostow v. State Farm Ins. Cos., 88 N.Y.2d 321, 326–327, 645 N.Y.S.2d 421, 668 N.E.2d 3......
-
Rivera v. AMICA Mutual Ins. CO
...A.D.3d 563] motorist (SUM) coverage provisions, unanimously affirmed, without costs. In Butler v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 274 A.D.2d 924, 711 N.Y.S.2d 607 [2000], the Third Department held that whether the term “insured,” as used in an identical Condition 6 of the SUM Endorsement......
-
In re Kemper Nat. Ins. Co.
...... to protect the insured against accidents with both uninsured and underinsured motorists" ( Butler v. New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co., 274 A.D.2d 924, 926, 711 N.Y.S.2d 607 [2000]; see 11 NYCRR 60-2.1; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. Shaw, 52 N.Y.2d 818, 820, 436 N.Y.S.2d 873 [1980] ). Upon ......