For Want of $78 a Wife’s Injuries Go Uncompensated
Barry Zalma
Jun 22, 2023
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gJ4qm8uP and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gsJYqDmN and at https://lnkd.in/gRHef5Y3 and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4500 posts.
Plaintiff Eric Levy sought a declaration that defendant New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company (New York Central) is obligated to provide plaintiff with coverage, defense, and indemnification for an August 29, 2021 car accident where he negligently injured his wife. New York Central moved for an order granting summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint and for a declaratory judgment declaring that it is not obligated to provide plaintiff with a defense or indemnification for the motor vehicle accident that is alleged to have occurred on August 29, 2021, as no Supplemental Spousal Liability coverage exists for this claim.
In Eric Levy v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Index No. 66227/2021, 2023 NY Slip Op 23183, the New York Court found in favor of the insurer.
FACTUAL AND RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On August 29, 2021, while driving his car, plaintiff accidentally struck his wife Lisa Grauer (Grauer), and Grauer allegedly suffered serious including a fracture. At the time of the accident, plaintiff had an active motor-vehicle insurance policy through New York Central with bodily-injury liability limits of $250,000.00 per person injured. Grauer filed a claim against plaintiff to New York Central, alleging that she was injured as a result of plaintiff’s negligence.
Plaintiff alleged that New York Central is liable for breach of contract in the amount of $250,000.00 for failing to provide plaintiff with coverage, a defense and indemnification. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on his amended complaint and is requesting a declaratory judgment, as set forth in the first cause of action. Plaintiff submitted an affidavit, describing the events that transpired and alleges that he was not provided with proper notice of SSL coverage.
New York Central avered that no SLL coverage exists for plaintiff’s policy, that it did comply with all notification requirements, and that plaintiff declined to purchase SLL coverage. New York Central issued a revised renewal policy adding an additional vehicle and included an SSL endorsement. The additional premium for the SSL coverage was $78.00 and plaintiff declined to purchase it.
Supplemental spousal liability insurance provides bodily injury liability coverage under a motor vehicle insurance policy to cover the liability of an insured spouse because of the death of or injury to his or her spouse, even where the injured spouse must prove the culpable conduct of the insured spouse.
DISCUSSION
Insurance Law § 3420 (g) was amended by Chapter 584 of the Laws of 2002, to require insurance carriers to offer their insureds supplemental spousal liability (SSL) insurance for an additional premium. This SSL coverage provides drivers with the option to be insured in cases where their negligence causes death or injury to their spouse.
Both parties present the insurance policy in support of their summary judgment motions and do not dispute the contents. The Court found that New York Central has made prima facie showing it is not obligated to provide plaintiff with indemnification or a defense for the motor vehicle accident occurring on August 29, 2021, because no SSL liability existed for this claim. Since Plaintiff declined to purchase the SLL an insurer is not required to provide insurance coverage for injuries sustained by an insured’s spouse.
It was undisputed that plaintiff did receive notification of the availability of the supplementary spousal liability insurance, and he refused to pay the extra $78 premium.
Accordingly, it was ordered that plaintiff Eric Levy’s motion was denied it its entirety. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company’s cross motion for an order granting summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint and for a declaratory judgment, is granted; and it was further ordered that defendant New York Central, because, as no Supplemental Spousal Liability coverage existed; and it was further ordered that the case was dismissed, and the Clerk was directed to enter judgment accordingly.
ZALMA OPINION
Insurers do not like, because of the potential for fraud, to insure against injury to a family member of the insured. New York passed a law requiring insurers to provide coverage for injury caused to a spouse as long as the insured pays an additional premium. Mr. Levy refused to pay the extra $78 and, by so doing, refused the coverage that only after the accident he wanted. No luck since he got the offer and the charge and refused it.
(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe.
Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808
Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected]
Follow me on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/comm/mynetwork/discovery-see-all?usecase=PEOPLE_FOLLOWS&followMember=barry-zalma-esq-cfe-a6b5257
Write to Mr. Zalma at [email protected]; http://www.zalma.com; http://zalma.com/blog; daily articles are published at https://zalma.substack.com. Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barry-zalma/support; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; https://creators.newsbreak.com/home/content/post; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gWVSBde.
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Is Exhaustion Required to Seek Declaratory Relief From an Excess Insurer?
Post 4578
Posted on November 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Fox Paine & Company, LLC, et al. v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company et al., S287404, 593 P.3d 832, 593 P.3d 838, 346 Cal.Rptr.3d 541, Supreme Court of California, (July 27, 2026) the Supreme Court noted that Insurance is sometimes procured in a series of layers, with an insured acquiring a primary insurance policy that provides an initial layer of coverage for loss or liability and an excess insurance policy or policies that provide additional coverage in the event the underlying coverage is exhausted. Usually, the first layer of coverage must be exhausted before the excess layers are available to the insured.
Exhaustion
Fox and Paine’s investment-firm dispute generated extensive litigation and competing insurance claims. Their insurance tower consisted of a $10 million primary policy and four $10 million excess layers.
The Fox Parties alleged that insurers paid their rivals, withheld information,...
Payment of Fines & Completion of Probation Reinstates Right to Vote
Post 4576
Posted on November 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
To Restore Voting Rights The Felon Must Pay Fines of $546.00
In Florida Supreme Court Mediator Ethics Advisory Committee, ETH F-26-377, No. F-26-377 (October 29, 2026) citizen unnamed and to Ron Desantis Governor, Cord Byrd the Secretary of State Florida Division of Elections provided an advisory opinion to a convicted felon about his right to vote:
To: [redacted] We received your request for an advisory opinion. You indicate that you have one or more felony convictions and request whether you are eligible to vote, including whether you have any outstanding legal financial obligations under section 98.0751, Florida Statutes, and, if so, a statement of the amount that must be paid to make you eligible to vote, and an explanation of how the amount was calculated.
The Division hereby responds to your request pursuant to its legal authority under section 106.23(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida ...
Administrative Review Permits the Agency to Apply its Expertise
Post 4574
In Erwin Jordan Castro Valdez v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, No. 26-cv-06147-BAS-JLB, United States District Court, S.D. California (October 30, 2026) Castro Valdez, a Cuban national paroled into the United States, was arrested on June 23, 2026, for alleged insurance fraud, grand theft, and making a false report to law enforcement. In his first habeas action, the district court ordered a bond hearing within fourteen days to determine whether the changed circumstances justified revoking his parole.
An Immigration Judge subsequently denied bond because of his pending state criminal case. Castro Valdez filed a second petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging that determination and requesting immediate release without first appealing to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
LAW
According to the supplied text, § 2241 does not expressly require administrative exhaustion, but courts impose exhaustion as a prudential requirement. ...
