Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp. v. Oppedisano
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtMario Pittoni, J.
After hearing the testimony herein, I find that the claimant was actually in contact with his car when the hit and run vehicle smashed into the claimant’s vehicle, knocked him down and injured him. Thus, he may not have been “ in ” the vehicle at the time of impact, but he was “ upon ” it. Be that as it may, it does not seem within the declaration of purpose of the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation Law to exclude him, under these facts, from the statute’s protection. (Insurance Law, § 600). The claimant had been an occupant of his vehicle just prior to the impact and he…
2Cited by20 opinions
- Nickerson v. Citizens Mutual InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1975
- Kentucky Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. McKinneyKentucky Supreme Court · 1992
- Rice v. Allstate InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1973
- Allstate Insurance v. FlaumenbaumNew York Supreme Court · 1970
- Collins v. Motorists Mutual InsuranceMichigan Court of Appeals · 1971
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.