Mobile

LexisNexis Insurance Law Community 2009 Top Blogs of the Year

Brought to you by:

  • IIABNY
  • TrustedChoice

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter
    Blog powered by TypePad

    « ISO Introduces Canine Liability Exclusion Endorsement for HO Policies | Main | Change In No-Fault Law Means Doctors Will Get Paid For Treating Drunk Drivers »

    July 26, 2010

    TrackBack

    TrackBack URL for this entry:
    http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00e54face98088330133f2933af7970b

    Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ask Tim Episode #18 -- No-Fault (Part 1):

    Comments

    Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

    Bill

    You mentioned that if you are injured while riding in a car of a Pennsylvania insured your NY no-fault would not apply. If the accident happens in PA it is required by the state that each passenger's own no-fault coverage is primary. Also recently had a case where a NY insured customer was injured while riding in a PA insured vehicle and the accident happened in New Jersey. The NY no-fault coverage paid this claim.

    Tim Dodge

    Bill, thanks for the comment. It's interesting to hear how the New York law interacts with those of our neighboring states. Anyone else have examples from other states?

    Dawn

    Tim,

    I have a question regarding PIP. If you have an insured that is involved in an accident involving alcohol, is the determining factor as to whether a pip claim is paid or denied based on alcohol related or alcohol conviction? Any info you have is greatly appreicated. Thanks

    Tim Dodge

    Dawn,

    The actual text of the endorsement states, "This coverage does not apply to personal injury sustained by:...Any person as a result of operating a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition or while his ability to operate such vehicle is impaired by the use of a drug (within the meaning of Section 1192 of the New York Vehicle and Traffic Law);..." N.Y. Vehicle and Traffic Law Sect. 1192 defines "driving while intoxicated" as driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.08 or higher. Note that the exclusion refers to operating a vehicle while intoxicated, not to being convicted. Therefore, the insurer can deny coverage even though the person has not been convicted of DWI.

    Verify your Comment

    Previewing your Comment

    This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

    Working...
    Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
    Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

    The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

    As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

    Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

    Working...

    Post a comment