Legal Opinion · Dissent
Meegan v. Progressive Insurance
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided June 8, 2007No. Appeal No. 2Published
1Dissent
Centra, J. (dissenting).
I
For the reasons that follow, we respectfully dissent in appeal No. 1 and dissent in part in appeal No. 2 because, in our view, *188defendant is not entitled to a new trial on the issues of serious injury and damages. With respect to appeal No. 2, we agree with the majority that plaintiffs’ underinsurance claim is limited to $225,000, and we therefore would modify the judgment in appeal No. 2 accordingly.
II
Sheila M. Meegan (plaintiff) sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident when the vehicle she was driving was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by Kevin T. Berry.…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Medical Society v. SerioNew York Court of Appeals · 2003
- In re the Claim of GruberNew York Court of Appeals · 1996
- Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance v. MancusoNew York Court of Appeals · 1999
- Acquista v. New York Life InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
- Belmonte v. SnashallNew York Court of Appeals · 2004
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.