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
© 2025 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 AllNew York Court of Appeals Roundup: Unresolved Split–the Accrual of Prejudgment Interest in No-Fault Automobile Actions
7 minute readNo-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
- 1We the People?
- 2New York-Based Skadden Team Joins White & Case Group in Mexico City for Citigroup Demerger
- 3No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 4Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 5Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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