Reichel v. Government Employees Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 19 December 1985
• Docket Number: No. 2,No. 1,1,2
• Parties: , 489 N.E.2d 1287 Harold I. REICHEL, as Administrator of the Estate of Lena Reichel, Deceased, Appellant, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. (Proceeding) In the Matter of GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent, v. Harold I. REICHEL, as Administrator of the Estate of Lena Reichel, Deceased, Appellant. (Proceeding)
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 385

499 N.Y.S.2d 385

66 N.Y.2d 1000, 489 N.E.2d 1287

Harold I. REICHEL, as Administrator of the Estate of Lena

Reichel, Deceased, Appellant, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.

(Proceeding No. 1.)

In the Matter of GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent, v. Harold I. REICHEL, as Administrator of the Estate of Lena

Reichel, Deceased, Appellant. (Proceeding No. 2.)

Court of Appeals of New York.

Dec. 19, 1985.

Thomas Torto, Brooklyn, for appellant.

Lawrence B. Lame and Vincent A. Di Blasi, Brooklyn, for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division, 107 A.D.2d 463, 487 N.Y.S.2d 99, should be affirmed, with costs.

The maximum recovery limits for wrongful death under an uninsured motorist indorsement are $50,000 for the death of one person and $100,000 for the death of two or more persons (Insurance Law § 3420 [formerly § 167(2-a) ] ). Pursuant to "terms and conditions * * * prescribed by the board of directors of the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation [MVAIC] and approved by the superintendent [of insurance]" (id.), when a claimant and an insurer cannot agree upon the amount to be recovered for such a claim, the parties must submit to binding arbitration. The statute also allows an insurer to provide supplementary uninsured motorists insurance with maximum coverage of $100,000/$300,000, but the MVAIC does not require that disputes concerning this excess coverage be resolved through binding arbitration.

In this case, the insured opted to purchase extra coverage, agreeing in a "Supplementary Uninsured Motorists Coverage" indorsement superseding the policy's standard provisions that an arbitration award exceeding the standard $50,000/$100,000 limitation may be reviewed by either party in a trial de novo. Because the arbitration award in this case set the insured's liability for the deceased's hit-and-run death at $100,000, greater than the standard $50,000 limitation, we cannot accept appellant's argument that the award was made pursuant to the standard Uninsured Motorist (Family Protection) coverage indorsement of the policy.

Although the extra coverage purchased by the insured here is commonly referred to as "underinsurance" (see, Metropolitan Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co. v. Cassidy, 127 Misc.2d 641, 486 N.Y.S.2d 843; Gull v. General Acc. Fire & Life Assur. Corp., 121 Misc.2d 721, 469 N.Y.S.2d 1004), it is nonetheless uninsured motorists coverage. Indeed, the statutory authorization for such additional coverage is found within this State's mandatory uninsured motorist coverage scheme, which describes this coverage as "Supplementary Uninsured Motorist Insurance". The statute distinguishes between "insured" and "uninsured" motor vehicles (see, Insurance Law § 5202[c], [d] ). An "insured motor vehicle" is defined as "a motor vehicle as to which there is maintained proof of financial security as defined in [Vehicle and Traffic Law § 311(3) ]" (Insurance Law § 5202[c] ), while an "uninsured motor vehicle" is defined as "a motor vehicle other than a motor vehicle described in section (c)" (Insurance Law § 5202[d] ).

The statutory allowance for supplementary...