Perkins v. Merchants Mut. Ins. Co.

• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: FUCHSBERG; BREITEL
• Citation: Perkins v. Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 41 N.Y.2d 394, 393 N.Y.S.2d 347, 361 N.E.2d 997 (N.Y. 1977)
• Decision Date: 24 February 1977
• Parties: , 361 N.E.2d 997 Edward C. PERKINS, Respondent, v. MERCHANTS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant.

Page 347

393 N.Y.S.2d 347

41 N.Y.2d 394, 361 N.E.2d 997

Edward C. PERKINS, Respondent, v. MERCHANTS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Feb. 24, 1977.

Thomas A. Ford and John J. McCall, Albany, for appellant.

John Marshall Gorman, Buffalo, for respondent.

Edward J. Hart, Merrick, amicus curiae.

FUCHSBERG, Judge.

The question presented on this appeal is whether plaintiff, a motorcyclist who was injured in a collision with an automobile, is entitled to the out-of-pocket medical and hospital expenses and lost earnings recoverable as 'first party benefits' under a 'no-fault' policy of insurance issued by the defendant to enable the automobile owner to comply with the provisions of article XVIII of the Insurance Law.

Defendant having rejected his claim, plaintiff instituted this action and each party thereafter moved for summary judgment. Special Term granted plaintiff's motion, denied that of the defendant, and entered judgment accordingly. The Appellate Division has affirmed; for the reasons which follow, we conclude that its holding is correct.

Defendant's primary contention is that, since motorcycles are expressly excluded from article XVIII's definition of 'motor vehicle' (Insurance Law, § 671, subd. 6, par. (b)), and their owners are therefore exempt from obtaining either a 'no-fault' policy of insurance or the alternative form of 'no-fault' financial security now required of motor vehicle owners, motorcyclists are not intended to be eligible for the benefits payable from the financial resources so provided. However, the short answer to that position is to be found in the fact that perhaps the most pressing purpose urged by its proponents for the adoption of article XVIII was to assure the prompt and full reimbursement of the 'economic' losses those injured in automobile accidents may suffer (Montgomery v. Daniels, 38 N.Y.2d 41, 51, 378 N.Y.S.2d 1, 8--9, 340 N.E.2d 444, 449--450).

It is unquestioned that that concern was by no means limited to those automobile accident victims who, as owners of motor vehicles, would, upon enactment of the statute, be compelled to secure 'no-fault' coverage. For instance, pedestrians, who ordinarily would be complete strangers to the owners of the motor vehicles in the course of whose use or operation their injuries were sustained, were expected to, and, under the statute as actually enacted, now do receive reimbursement of their allowable monetary losses though they do not contribute a cent to the cost of purchasing such coverage.

For the purposes of article XVIII those involved in automobile accidents may be regarded as falling into either or both of two classifications. One consists of those required to provide the 'no-fault' coverage From which benefits are to be paid. The other is made up of those who, as a result of sustaining recoverable losses, are persons To whom those benefits are to be paid. As already indicated, membership in one group is not necessarily dependent on membership in the other. Nor are they mutually exclusive (cf. McConnell v. Fireman's Fund Amer. Ins. Co., 79 Misc.2d 219, 359 N.Y.S.2d 224 (Lynch, J.), affd., 49 A.D.2d 676, 370 N.Y.S.2d 730).

Thus, reference in Montgomery v. Daniels, supra, 38 N.Y.2d p. 46, 378 N.Y.S.2d p. 4--5, 340 N.E.2d p. 446 to the exclusion of motorcycles from the act's 'coverage', made there in the context of a description of the particular Benefits for which compensation must be made available, is to be read as excluding motorcycle...