Although the court stated that the witness was credible, the court held that the issue to be resolved "was whether or not there was an insurance policy or coverage at the time of the accident" and that MVAIC had failed to sustain its burden.
Since the pretrial stipulation simply required MVAIC to prove "that there was potential coverage," MVAIC was not required to prove that "there was an insurance policy or coverage at the time of the accident." In light of the foregoing, MVAIC sustained its burden of proving "that there was potential coverage."
Claimant's medical provider sent bills to MVAIC, which denied the claims on the grounds that there was potential coverage through the Liquidation Bureau.
The Insignia/ESG team of Michael Gottlieb, Merrill Roth and Joel Wechsler represented MVAIC
in the 15-year transaction.
Notably, the statute currently defines the class of persons entitled to the payment of first-party no-fault insurance benefits using "the unembellished word occupant'" (Colon, 48 NY2d at 574), but the exclusions at issue in the Kemper and Farm and Family insurance policies incorporate an expansive definition of "occupying" identical to that of the MVAIC
Law: "in or upon or entering into or alighting from" ([section] 5217).
The four requests to qualify sent by MVAIC informed Wang that to be deemed a "covered person" under Insurance Law Article 52, Wang had to be a "qualified person" and that he had not yet met the requirements of a qualified person since there were a number of items that MVAIC had not yet received.
MVAIC was created to "provide no-fault benefits for qualified persons for basic economic loss arising out of the use and operation in this state of an uninsured motor vehicle" NY Insurance Law ("Ins.
MVAIC, 2012 NY Slip Op 51643(U), 36 Misc 3d 148(a) (App.
However, the ruling failed to clearly address the intent of the Court of Appeals in MVAIC, wherein the court deemed a car rental agency to have "constructively" consented to a third-party driver's operation of its rental vehicle despite a lease provision restricting use of the vehicle to the lessee and his immediate family.
Defendant contends, however, that MVAICs ruling does not extend to "additional coverage" as the public policy concerns underpinning the ruling in MVAIC do not exist here.
Plaintiffs David Abdiyev and Catherine Yunatanova commenced the instant action against defendant MVAIC to recover damages for injuries sustained when the vehicle in which they were traveling was struck by a hit and run driver.
"While the Supreme Court implicitly found that Abdiyev was a qualified person, since such finding is a prerequisite to the order which granted Abdiyev leave to sue MVAIC (Insurance Law [section] 5218[b] ), it was based upon the Supreme Court's threshold determination that the statutory requirements were satisfied.