From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Jones v. Motor Vehicle Acc. Indem

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 11, 1991
172 A.D.2d 942 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

April 11, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Montgomery County (White, J.).


At issue on this appeal is whether petitioner, as the legal representative of the deceased driver of an uninsured motor vehicle, can seek no-fault benefits from respondent. We agree with Supreme Court that petitioner can seek such benefits.

Insurance Law § 5221 requires that respondent provide for the payment of first-party benefits to a "qualified person" for basic economic loss arising out of the use or operation in New York of an uninsured motor vehicle. "Qualified person" is defined as "a resident of this state, other than an insured or the owner of an uninsured motor vehicle and his spouse when a passenger in such vehicle, or his legal representative" (Insurance Law § 5202 [b] [i]). Relying upon the phrase "when a passenger in such vehicle", respondent argues that a driver of an uninsured motor vehicle cannot be a qualified person. The argument is premised on a misreading of the statute; the phrase must be read in context. According to the plain meaning of the statute, a "qualified person" is any resident of New York except an insured or the owner of an uninsured motor vehicle or the spouse of such owner when the spouse is a passenger in such vehicle. If the injured party would be a qualified person within the meaning of the statute, then his or her legal representative is also a qualified person. Drivers of uninsured motor vehicles are not generally excluded from the benefits provided by Insurance Law § 5221, although there is an apparent illogic in that the statute excludes the spouse of the owner of an uninsured vehicle when the spouse is a passenger in such vehicle but not when the spouse is the driver of such vehicle (Matter of MVAIC [Mitchell], 155 A.D.2d 296, 297, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 703). It is also noteworthy that when the Legislature wanted to exclude the driver of an uninsured motor vehicle from receiving benefits, the statute expressly so provides (see, Insurance Law § 5218 [b] [3]; Matter of Levy v. MVAIC, 81 A.D.2d 816, affd 56 N.Y.2d 694).

Order affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P.J., Casey, Weiss, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Jones v. Motor Vehicle Acc. Indem

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 11, 1991
172 A.D.2d 942 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Matter of Jones v. Motor Vehicle Acc. Indem

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of CATHERINE M. JONES, as Administratrix of the Estate of…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Apr 11, 1991

Citations

172 A.D.2d 942 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
568 N.Y.S.2d 222

Citing Cases

Paulino v. MVAIC

The Court held "Drivers of uninsured motor vehicles are not generally excluded from the benefits provided by…

Murrell v. Lake

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs. Contrary to the appellants' contention, the Supreme Court…