Nonetheless, we should mention two state trial court opinions that were discussed by the district court and exhaustively analyzed by the parties on appeal. In Cole v. Lord, 91 Misc.2d 178, 397 N.Y.S.2d 537 (Sup.Ct.Broome Cty. 1977), the court was primarily concerned with the peculiar status of motorcyclists under the no-fault law. Because motorcycles are specifically excluded from the definition of motor vehicle under the Act, motorcycle owners are not required to obtain coverage for no-fault benefits.

This reasoning was adopted in Seward v. Northrup, 123 Misc.2d 420, 473 N.Y.S.2d 754 (Sup.Ct. 1984). It should be noted that there is one case in which a somewhat different reasoning was adopted, Cole v. Lord, 91 Misc.2d 178, 397 N.Y.S.2d 537 (Sup.Ct. 1977). In that case, plaintiff Cole, a motorcycle passenger, sued Cronk, the motorcycle operator, and Lord, an automobile driver.

One group consists of "those required to provide the `no fault' coverage from which benefits are to be paid [and] The other is made up of those who, as a result of sustaining recoverable losses, are persons to whom those benefits are to be paid." (Perkins v Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 41 N.Y.2d 394, 396; see, also, Cole v Lord, 91 Misc.2d 178. ) There was, therefore, no right to reimbursement or arbitration under section 674 Ins. of the Insurance Law.

One of the most significant purposes of New York's no-fault law "was to assure the prompt and full reimbursement" of economic losses suffered by those injured in automobile accidents. Cole v. Lord, 397 N.Y.S.2d 537, 539 (1977). In Cole, the New York Appellate Division held that where an individual insured — a motorcyclist — was a member of a group that was not required to carry no-fault insurance, the insured was a non-covered person, and the insurance company that had paid first-party benefits was entitled to a statutory lien.

However, such a cause of action is a common-law tort action undiminished by the provisions of the No-Fault Law ( Matter of Dean v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 75 A.D.2d 984; see, Montgomery v Daniels, 38 N.Y.2d 41). When an insured brings such an action against more than one tort-feasor, an uncovered person is liable only for the proportionate share of the loss attributable to his negligence ( Cole v Lord, 91 Misc.2d 178). With respect to an insurer's cause of action in the event the insured does not sue, the statute provides for recovery of first-party benefits against an uncovered person "who may be liable to the covered person for his personal injuries" (Insurance Law § 673 [2]; emphasis supplied), thus suggesting that the insurer, like its insured, must prove the negligence of the noncovered person and the proportionate share of the loss attributable to his negligence.

The defendant municipalities now move to limit the amount of the verdict against them as it relates to economic loss to 35% of the recovery for medical expenses; that is, 35% of $15,750 or $5,512. They contend that their liability for the payment of medical expenses should be no greater than their liability for the payment of the award for noneconomic loss. Reliance is placed upon Cole v Lord ( 91 Misc.2d 178). Initially it should be observed that the facts in this case differ substantially from those presented in that cited by the movants.