Durant v. Motor Vehicle Acc. Indemnification Corp.
| Decision Date | 22 April 1965 |
| Parties | , 207 N.E.2d 600 In the Matter of the Arbitration between Santiago DURANT, Respondent, and MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Patrick J. Hughes, New York City, for appellant.
Seymour H. Metnick, New York City, for respondent.
The petitioner's demand for arbitration was in the role of an 'insured' under the terms of a motor vehicle liability policy which contained an endorsement providing coverage by the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation against injury by an uninsured vehicle in pursuance of subdivision 2 a of section 167 of the Insurance Law, Consol.Laws, c. 28.
This subdivision also authorizes the board of directors of the corporation to prescribe the conditions of coverage subject to the approval of the Superintendent of Insurance. The endorsement setting up arbitration expressly provided that 'Any amount payable' under the terms of the endorsement 'shall be reduced by' amounts paid under any workmen's compensation law.
Appellant was entitled, therefore, to have deducted from the $10,000 found by the arbitrator as the amount payable the sum of $6,710 paid petitioner as workmen's compensation benefits. That a 'Qualified person' (not an insured) making a claim under section 610 of the Insurance Law would not have an award reduced by compensation payments does not invalidate the specific terms of the submission to arbitration under a valid policy endorsement. Claimant was entitled to interest from the time of the award under sections 480 and 1464 of the Civil Practice Act then in effect.
The order of the Appellate Division should be modified to the extent of deducting workmen's compensation benefits from the award and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs.
We dissent and vote to affirm, that is, to confirm the arbitrator's award which in this Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC) case (petitioner injured by uninsured car) computed the damages at $18,000 and allowed recovery against MVAIC of the maximum of $10,000, refusing to deduct therefrom workmen's compensation benefits received by petitioner in the amount of $6,710.95.
Petitioner-respondent was an 'Insured' person under MVAIC provisions (Insurance Law, § 601) that is, he was one of the insureds covered by an automobile liability policy which contained a paid-for rider mandated by subdivision 2-a of section 167 of the Insurance Law and which covenanted to pay him 'all sums' not exceeding $10,000 which he should 'be legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured automobile'.
The statute (§ 167, subd. 2-a) which commands the issuance of the policy rider plainly says and means that such an insured person shall recover from MVAIC all his legally recoverable damages up to $10,000. Everyone who has written on the subject has stated or assumed that the statutory purpose was to afford to the injured person the same protection as he would have were his tort-feasor covered by the compulsory $10,000 automobile liability policy (see N. Y. Legis. Annual, 1958, pp. 244, 299, 436, 473; also the legislative 'Declaration of purpose' in Insurance Law, § 600; McCarthy v. MVAIC, 16 A.D.2d 35, 38, 224 N.Y.S.2d 909, 912, affd. 12 N.Y.2d 922, 238 N.Y.S.2d 101, 188 N.E.2d 405; 8 Buffalo L.Rev. 215, 239). Despite all this, the automobile liability insurance policy rider as written announced that any amount payable thereunder should be reduced by amounts received by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
House v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co.
...Hackman v. American Mut. Liab. Ins. Co., 110 N.H. 87, 261 A.2d 433 (Sup.Ct.1970) ; Durant v. Motor Vehicle Acc. Indem. Corp., 15 N.Y.2d 408, 260 N.Y.S.2d 1, 207 N.E.2d 600 (Ct.App.1965)." A review of Annot., 10 A.L.R.4th 996, indicates a majority of jurisdictions still support House's Comea......
-
National Ave. Bldg. Co. v. Stewart
...Hooten Constr. Co. v. Borsberry Constr. Co., 108 N.M. 192, 769 P.2d 726, 729-30 (1989); Durant v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp., 15 N.Y.2d 408, 260 N.Y.S.2d 1, 207 N.E.2d 600, 601 (1965); Weldon & Kelly Co. v. Pavia Co., 354 Pa. 75, 46 A.2d 466, 468 (1946); Kermacy v. First U......
-
Bartlett v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
...913; Hackman v. American Mutual Liability Ins. Co. (1970), 110 N.H. 87, 261 A.2d 433; Durant v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp. (1965), 15 N.Y.2d 408, 260 N.Y.S.2d 1, 207 N.E.2d 600.2 In this regard, it is of small consequence that an insurer first obtains the approval of the S......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Toro
...v. Motor Vehicle Acc. Indemnif. Corp., 20 A.D.2d 242, 246 N.Y.S.2d 548 (App.Div.1964), mod. on other grounds, 15 N.Y.2d 408, 260 N.Y.S.2d 1, 207 N.E.2d 600 (Ct.App.1965), rearg. den. 16 N.Y.2d 716, 261 N.Y.S.2d 1028, 209 N.E.2d 565 In providing for uninsured motorist coverage the Legislatur......