TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Edwards v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

In the Matter of Jesse C. Edwards v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation

Edwards v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp., 25 A.D.2d 420 (1966)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
January 20, 1966
Judges
Botein, Breitel, Eager, Steuer, Valente
Citations
25 A.D.2d 420266 N.Y.S.2d 4601966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5115

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Order so denominated, entered June 23, 1965, granting claimant-respondent’s motion for leave to sue the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC), pursuant to section 618 of the Insurance Law, unanimously reversed on the law, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellant MVAIC, and the motion is denied. Claimant was not a “qualified person” within the meaning of section 618, inasmuch as he fell into the mutually exclusive category of an “insured”, as elsewhere defined in the Insurance Law (Insurance Law, § 601, subds. b, i). Any rights claimant, as an “insured”, may have to proceed against MVAIC are derived from statutory provisions other than section 618 and from the standard New York Automobile Indemnification Endorsement (e.g., Matwijko v. Zoladz Lbr., 16 A D 2d 1024; Matter of Balletti v. Motor Vehicle Acc. Ind. Corp., 16 A D 2d 814). Nor does the fact that an exclusion found in the standard New York Automobile Indemnification Endorsement, based on claimant’s eligibility for workmen’s compensation coverage, negate the fact that he is an “ insured ” as defined, notwithstanding it may bar claimant from proceeding against MVAIC. An exclusion, in insurance parlance, serves the purpose of taking out persons or events otherwise included within the defined scope of coverage. Moreover, a contrary construction would frustrate the statutory purpose underlying the creation of MVAIC, which was designed to compensate injured persons who were otherwise without any recourse to any compensatory fund.

Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1979: 12015: 119792026peak 1979 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Bortz v. Merrimac Mutual Insurance286 N.W.2d 16 (Wis. Ct. App. 1979)
  2. Lend Lease (US) Construction LMB Inc. v. Zurich American Insurance136 A.D.3d 52 (2015)

Most recent

  1. Lend Lease (US) Construction LMB Inc. v. Zurich American Insurance136 A.D.3d 52 (2015)
  2. Bortz v. Merrimac Mutual Insurance286 N.W.2d 16 (Wis. Ct. App. 1979)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list