Legal Opinion

Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance v. Hobson

New York Court of Appeals

Decided February 11, 1986PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

2Per curiam

The requirement of "physical contact” in the definition of "hit-and-run automobile” contained in the uniform uninsured motorist indorsement is a matter of coverage, not exclusion from coverage.

Respondents, Marjorie Hobson and Vivian Belasco, were in an automobile accident involving an unidentified driver, who made an illegal turn in front of their car. In attempting to avoid a collision, respondents spun out of control and collided with another vehicle which was in turn struck by yet another car. The unidentified vehicle sped away. Respondents filed notices of intention to…

3Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Zappone v. Home InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1982
  2. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp. v. EisenbergNew York Court of Appeals · 1966
  3. In re the Arbitration between SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1971

4Cited by19 opinions

  1. Central General Hospital v. Chubb Group of Insurance CompaniesNew York Court of Appeals · 1997
  2. In re the Arbitration between Allcity Insurance & JimenezNew York Court of Appeals · 1991
  3. Planet Insurance v. Bright Bay Classic Vehicles, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1990
  4. State Farm Mutual Insurance v. VazquezAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
  5. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. AvenaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API