Sisson v. Travelers Ins. Companies

Decision Date25 May 1983
Citation94 A.D.2d 953,464 N.Y.S.2d 77
PartiesRoy SISSON, Jr., Appellant, v. The TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANIES, Respondent.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Brown, Kelly, Turner, Hassett & Leach by Michael Pilarz, Buffalo, for appellant.

Mark G. Farrell by Cornelius Lang, Buffalo, for respondent.

Before DILLON, P.J., and DOERR, BOOMER, GREEN and SCHNEPP, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

While a pedestrian, plaintiff sustained injuries after being struck by an unidentified motor vehicle. At the time of the accident plaintiff resided in the home of his parents. Roy A. Sisson, plaintiff's father, was then the owner of an automobile insurance policy issued by defendant covering two motor vehicles. The insurance policy was in standard form and included coverage for bodily injuries caused by the operation of an uninsured motor vehicle (Insurance Law, § 167, subd. 2-a). The insurance policy set the limit of liability under the latter endorsement at $10,000 for each person, on each vehicle, and requires a $2.00 premium for the stated coverage on each vehicle. It is conceded that plaintiff is an insured person under the definitional terms of the uninsured motorist's endorsement.

Special Term, 114 Misc.2d 594, 452 N.Y.S.2d 133, denied plaintiff's application for a declaration that he was entitled to recover the $10,000 policy limit for each of the two vehicles covered even though a separate $2.00 premium was paid for each coverage. We agree.

Under the circumstances here presented, plaintiff must look to the uninsured motorist's coverage provisions of the policy in order to recover for non-economic loss. Uninsured motorist's coverage is a substitute for liability insurance where liability coverage on a particular motor vehicle (e.g., hit-and-run automobile) is unavailable. The insurance policy fixes the limit of liability for injury caused by an uninsured automobile at $10,000 for one person as the result of an accident (Insurance Law, § 167, subd. 2-a) and limits plaintiff's recovery, regardless of how many vehicles are covered by the policy (Matter of Spychalski 88 Misc.2d 129, 386 N.Y.S.2d 998, revd. on other grounds sub nom (Matter of Spychalski 58 A.D.2d 193, 396 N.Y.S.2d 533, affd. 45 N.Y.2d 847, 410 N.Y.S.2d 65, 382 N.E.2d 765).

That a separate premium was paid for this coverage for each insured vehicle is of no moment. Separate premiums have been paid for all of the itemized coverages on each of the insured vehicles. Contrary to plaintiff's assertion that the insured...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Stamper
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • February 11, 1987
    ...996, 454 N.E.2d 922 (1983); Eckert v. Green Mountain Insurance Co., 118 N.H. 701, 394 A.2d 55 (1978); Sisson v. Travelers Insurance Companies, 94 A.D.2d 953, 464 N.Y.S.2d 77 (1983). Stamper argues in the alternative that, because he made separate premium payments for each automobile covered......
  • Morris v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., Inc., 86 Civ. 9605 (CLB).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • June 22, 1987
    ...one month after sustaining injuries), aff'd, 65 N.Y.2d 807, 493 N.Y.S.2d 127, 482 N.E.2d 923 (1985); Sisson v. Travelers Insurance Cos., 94 A.D.2d 953, 464 N.Y.S.2d 77 (4th Dep't 1983). Section (f)(2), enacted in 1977, is naturally read as the legislature's attempt to remedy this Any such p......
  • Rifkin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • January 13, 1993
    ...v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Inc., 662 F.Supp. 1489, 1494). In 1983 the Fourth Department in Sisson v. Travelers Insurance Companies, 94 A.D.2d 953, 464 N.Y.S.2d 77, refused to permit an insured to stack $10,000 of UM coverage when there was but one policy covering two vehicle......
  • Glens Falls Ins. Co. v. Sybalsky
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • September 30, 1997
    ...to aggregate coverage. Furthermore, stacking is not permitted in New York, where the contract was executed; Sisson v. Travelers Ins. Co., 94 A.D.2d 953, 464 N.Y.S.2d 77 (1983); and the insurance policy at issue expressly excluded stacking. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the pla......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT