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.
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Applicant for Insurance is Obligated to Advise Insurer in Material Changes After Application Was Signed
Post number 5371
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/physicians-malpractice-insurance-available-when-zalma-esq-cfe-fmpxc and https://zalma.com/blog.
Doctor Criminally Charged and License Suspended After Application Signed had Policy Rescinded for Failure to Advise Insurer of Change
In Xiang (Sean) Yuan, M.D. v. Positive Physicians Insurance Company, No. 1821 EDA 2025, No. J-A08033-26, Superior Court of Pennsylvania (May 29, 2026) Dr. Xiang (Sean) Yuan, a physician, sought renewal of his professional liability insurance policy with Positive Physicians Insurance Company (PPIC) in June 2020 and again in May 2021.
In the June 2020 renewal application, he answered “no” to questions asking whether he knew of any circumstances that might lead to a professional liability claim.
Two days after signing the 2020 renewal application, Dr. Yuan was charged with 36 criminal offenses, and...
Claim and Suit Time Barred by Private Limitation of Action
Post number 5370
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/you-lose-when-sit-your-rights-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-vfxsc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5350 posts.
Suit Fails Because the Plaintiffs Ignored the Policy’s Private Limitation of Action
In Shree Ugtai Express, Inc. d/b/a Hollday Express Shop v. West Bend Insurance Company, No. 1:26-cv-01050-STA-jay, United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Eastern Division (June 9, 2026) Shree Ugtai Express, Inc., doing business as Holladay Express Shop, sued West Bend Insurance Company for wrongful denial of insurance benefits after property damage allegedly caused by a burst water heater pipe on December 25, 2022.
The insurance policy required any suit to be brought within two years of the date of direct physical loss or damage. Plaintiff filed its complaint in Tennessee state court on December 17, 2024, which was within that two-year period.
FACTS
However, although a summons ...
Claim and Suit Time Barred by Private Limitation of Action
Post number 5370
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/you-lose-when-sit-your-rights-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-vfxsc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5350 posts.
Suit Fails Because the Plaintiffs Ignored the Policy’s Private Limitation of Action
In Shree Ugtai Express, Inc. d/b/a Hollday Express Shop v. West Bend Insurance Company, No. 1:26-cv-01050-STA-jay, United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Eastern Division (June 9, 2026) Shree Ugtai Express, Inc., doing business as Holladay Express Shop, sued West Bend Insurance Company for wrongful denial of insurance benefits after property damage allegedly caused by a burst water heater pipe on December 25, 2022.
The insurance policy required any suit to be brought within two years of the date of direct physical loss or damage. Plaintiff filed its complaint in Tennessee state court on December 17, 2024, which was within that two-year period.
FACTS
However, although a summons ...
