POLICY ONLY APPLIED TO THE INSURED, A RELATIVE, OR A PERSON “OCCUPYING” THE CAR
As N.J. was driving home after a basketball game, the front left tire and rim of the vehicle he was driving came off the car. He then pulled over to the left lane, exited the vehicle, and called his coach and asked the latter to pick him up. While N.J. was standing in front of the vehicle, a Mercedes hit the rear of the parked car, which, in turn, hit N.J. and sent him “flying.”
When N.J. later started an arbitration proceeding to collect under the parked vehicle’s “supplementary underinsured motorist (SUM)” insurance, the New York County Supreme Court granted a stay of the dispute. And on appeal, the Appellate Division, First Division, “unanimously affirmed” the outcome because it noted that the policy in question applied only to the “insured, a relative of the insured or a person ‘occupying’ the car.”
Since N.J. didn’t satisfy any of those coverage requirements – as he wasn’t the insured, nor a relative, and had “‘severed [his] connection’” with the vehicle, and wasn’t “occupying” it when he was injured – the AD1 “unanimously affirmed” the motion court’s grant of a stay.
That's the SUM of it.
# # #
DECISION