The New SUM Limits Law
Insurance Law columnist Jonathan A. Dachs writes: Consumers purchasing new insurance policies on June 19, 2018 should examine their policies carefully to make sure that the new beneficial SUM limits provisions are contained therein.
March 20, 2018 at 02:45 PM
6 minute read
In my Sept. 21, 2017 column “Recent Legislative, Regulatory Amendments Pertaining to Auto Insurance, Part II,” I noted that the Supplementary Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist (SUM) limits bills, S5644B (co-sponsored by State Senators James Seward, Joseph Addabbo, Marisol Alcantara and Tony Avella), and A8519A (sponsored by Assemblyman Joseph Morelle), had passed both Houses of the New York State Legislature in June 2017, and were awaiting Gov. Andrew Cuomo's signature. I now take this opportunity to inform my readers that on Dec. 18, 2017, the Governor did, in fact, sign those bills into law, as Chapter 490 of the Laws of New York, 2017, also known as the “Driver and Family Protection Act.”[1]
Justification
This new law, in the form of an amendment to Insurance Law §3420(f) by the addition of new sub-paragraphs 2-a (A), (B), (C) and (D), offers a dramatic change with regard to the purchase of automobile insurance by New York policyholders. As set forth in the Bill Summary, the justification for this statutory amendment is as follows: “Supplementary insurance, also known as uninsured or underinsured motorist insurance, protects motorists who suffer severe and devastating injuries in accidents with drivers who carry inadequate or no insurance. Few drivers are aware of the value of supplementary insurance and insurance companies rarely offer supplementary insurance coverage above the statutory minimum. This bill will ensure that drivers are fully protected themselves by supplementary insurance equal to the bodily injury liability insurance coverage they select to protect others, unless they affirmatively elect lower coverage for themselves.”
Comparison to Prior (Current) Law
Under the current law (still in effect), an auto insurance consumer is required to purchase the mandatory Uninsured Motorist (UM) coverage ($25,000/$50,000), but may decide to purchase, or not purchase, the additional, voluntary Supplementary Uninsured or Underinsured Motorist (SUM) coverage in amounts up to the limits of his or her bodily injury liability coverage (or less) at his or her own will and for his or her own reasons, and insurers are obligated to offer and to provide (upon request) SUM limits in an amount “up to the bodily injury liability limits under the policy, subject to a maximum of $250,000 per person/$500,000 per accident, or, in the alternative, $100,000/$300,000 plus an umbrella policy with SUM limits of at least $500,000.”[2] Under the new law recently signed by the Governor, SUM coverage will be automatically included in automobile insurance policies in an amount equal to the bodily injury liability coverage purchased, with no mandated maximum unless the policyholder affirmatively signs a written waiver either rejecting the SUM coverage completely, or requesting/purchasing a lower SUM coverage limit.
Effective Date
Pursuant to the terms of the amended statute, this new change will apply to new policies “entered into” after June 18, 2018 (the effective date of the amendment), but not to policies entered into prior to June 18, 2018 and renewed after that date. The new law also has a “sunset provision” under which it will automatically expire on June 30, 2020—unless, of course, the Legislature chooses to extend it.
Key Features
As noted, the amended statute maintains the optional nature of SUM coverage, as well as the ability of the policyholder to reject it entirely or purchase amounts of SUM coverage less than the bodily injury liability coverage under the policy. However, it provides that for new policies covered by the new law, if the policyholder does elect to reject the SUM coverage, or to purchase it in limits lower than the bodily injury liability limits, that decision and request must be made on a written or electronic waiver form provided by the insurer to the named insured. In addition, the insurer must provide the insureds a notice, in 12-point bold type, that shall state, as follows:
“SUPPLEMENTARY UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE (SUM COVERAGE) PROVIDES INSURANCE PROTECTION FOR ANY PERSON INCLUDED AS INSURED UNDER YOUR POLICY IF HE OR SHE IS INJURED IN AN ACCIDENT INVOLVING ANOTHER MOTOR VEHICLE WHOSE OWNER OR OPERATOR WAS NEGLIGENT BUT WHO HAS EITHER NO BODILY INJURY OR LIABILITY INSURANCE, OR LESS THAN THE INSURANCE YOU CARRY. SUM COVERAGE SHALL BE EQUAL TO THE LEVEL OF BODILY INJURY LIABILITY COVERAGE OF YOUR MOTOR VEHICLE LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY UNLESS YOU SIGN A WAIVER REQUESTING LOWER COVERAGE OR DECLINING THE COVERAGE. YOU ARE URGED TO CAREFULLY CONSIDER THIS DECISION.”
Further, with respect to the written waiver, the new statute provides that it will apply to all subsequent renewals of coverage and to all modifications of coverage, unless changed in writing by any named insured, and that the selection of lower SUM coverage or the rejection of such coverage by any one named insured will be binding upon all insureds under the policy.
The new statute also provides that, at the insurer's option, the insured's SUM coverage limit may be required to equal the insured's bodily injury liability coverage limit. And, finally, an insurer may provide the SUM coverage described in the statute in an umbrella or excess liability policy that expressly provides such coverage.
Conclusion
Consumers purchasing new insurance policies on June 19, 2018 should examine their policies carefully to make sure that the new beneficial SUM limits provisions are contained therein.
Endnotes:
[1] It is interesting to note that the signing of this legislation pertaining to required SUM limits following shortly after Governor Cuomo and the State Legislature required Transportation Network Companies (such as Uber, Lifft, and other “rideshare” companies) to provide SUM insurance coverage for all their rideshare vehicles with limits of $1.25 million, an amount equal to their required general auto liability coverage. See Dachs, J.
[2] Insurers can, and frequently do, offer the Supplementary Uninsured or Underinsured Motorist coverage with higher limits, provided such limits do not exceed the bodily injury liability limits of the policy.
Jonathan A. Dachs is a partner at Shayne, Dachs, Sauer & Dachs, in Mineola. He is the author of New York Uninsured and Underinsured Motorist Law & Practice (LexisNexis/Matthew Bender 2016).
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 AllThe Unraveling of Sean Combs: How Legislation from the #MeToo Movement Brought Diddy Down
When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
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