Recent Legislative, Regulatory Amendments Pertaining to Auto Insurance: Part II
Insurance Law columnist Jonathan A. Dachs discusses recent noteworthy changes including a new example illustrating the proper application of Supplementary Uninsured/Underinsured Motorists coverage, which is required to be included in the written notice sent by the insurer with all new and renewal policies, amendments to clarify the prescribed SUM endorsement, and more.
September 20, 2017 at 02:04 PM
27 minute read
In my previous article, I began a discussion of the spate of recent noteworthy changes to the statutes and regulations governing auto insurance.1 Therein, I promised to continue that topic with a discussion of an even more recent set of amendments to the Supplementary Uninsured/Underinsured Motorists (SUM) Endorsement set forth in Regulation 35-D (11 NYCRR §60-2.3, et seq.), and an analysis and update on the proposed legislation pertaining to the required limits of SUM coverage, an earlier version of which was discussed in these pages several years ago.2 Below is my attempt at keeping that promise.
Sixth Amendment to Regulation 35-D
Pursuant to the authority granted to her by §§202 and 302 of the Financial Services Law, and §§301, 307, 308 and 3420 of the Insurance Law, the Superintendent of Financial Services, Maria T. Vullo, recently promulgated the Sixth Amendment to Part 60-2 of Title 11 of the Official Computation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York (Insurance Regulation No. 35-D), governing SUM coverage, which took effect on Aug. 1, 2017. Though less extensive and less dramatic than the changes to the Regulation 35-D SUM Endorsement enacted pursuant to the Seventh Amendment to Regulation 35-D, discussed in my prior article, which was enacted on June 29, 2017, as an emergency measure, the Sixth Amendment changes are significant in their own right. The most significant of these changes are summarized below.
New Illustration of SUM Arbitration
The Sixth Amendment adds to 11 NYCRR §60-2.2 (“Notice about SUM coverage”) a new (fifth) example illustrating the proper application of SUM coverage, which is required to be included in the written notice sent by the insurer with all new and renewal policies. That example, “Example Five,” which demonstrates the applicability of SUM coverage when an accident involves persons that are both injured and killed, and the SUM coverage on a combined single limit policy provides equivalent or greater benefits than the mandatory UM coverage, provides as follows:
Insured's Bodily Injury Damages $25,000
Passenger's Bodily Injury Damages $25,000
Another Passenger's Damages that resulted in death $50,000
Insured's Combined Single Limit (CSL) $75,000
Insured's CSL SUM Limit $75,000
Other Motor Vehicle Liability Limit Uninsured
(i.e., no coverage)
Result: Since the other motor vehicle was uninsured, the full $75,000 CSL SUM limit is available for all insured persons from this accident under the policy. However, since the accident involves insured persons who were both injured and killed, the mandatory UM limits of $25,000 per person and $50,000 per accident for injured persons, and $50,000 per person and $100,000 per accident for persons killed in the accident are available. Therefore, the insured and first passenger each recover $25,000 and the second passenger's estate recovers the full $50,000 under the SUM coverage.
If the insured's CSL and CSL SUM were each $300,000 and the insured's damages amounted to $200,000, then all insured persons would be covered under the SUM coverage as the total damages $200,000 + $25,000 + $50,000 = $275,000) are less than the $300,000 CSL SUM Limit.”
Amendments to the SUM Endorsement
Section 60-2.3(f), which contains the text of the prescribed SUM endorsement, has been amended, inter alia, by dividing Condition 2 (Notice and Proof of Claim) into subparagraphs (2)(i) and (2)(ii) for more clarity, and by clarifying references to the period of days within which the insurer is required to furnish proof of claim forms (i.e., 15), by changing the term “days” to “calendar days.” Conditions 5 (SUM Limits) and 6 (Maximum Payments) have been combined, and a new §5(a)(3) has been added to clarify the applicability of the SUM coverage when an accident involves persons that are both injured and killed. New subdivision (3) now provides as follows:
If an accident results in both bodily injury to one or more persons and the death of one or more persons, then we will provide the greater of the SUM limits stated in the Declarations or the limits required by the mandatory uninsured motorist (UM) coverage as follows:
$25,000 per injured person and, subject to this per person limit,
$50,000 to two or more persons injured as the result of any one accident; and
$50,000 per person for bodily injury resulting in death and, subject to this per person limit,
$100,000 to two or more persons for bodily injury resulting in death as the result of any one accident.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNo-Fault Insurance Law Wrap-Up: Recent Decisions Concerning New York's MVAIC Coverage
9 minute readHolland & Knight Snags 2 Insurance Partners in New York and Philadelphia From Goodwin
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250