Insurance Co. of North America v. Godwin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
46 A.D.2d 154 (1974)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A territorial limitation in an uninsured motorist provision of an automobile insurance policy, which restricts coverage to accidents occurring only within New York State, is void as against the state's public policy of providing broad protection to its residents from financially irresponsible drivers. When two insurance policies covering the same loss both contain 'excess insurance' clauses, the clauses are deemed mutually repugnant, and both insurers must share the liability on a pro-rata basis.

Facts:

Andrew C. Godwin, a New York resident, owned a Honda motorcycle and a Mercedes-Benz automobile.
Country-Wide Insurance Company issued an insurance policy on the motorcycle, which contained an uninsured motorist clause stating it applied 'only to accidents which occur within the State of New York'.
Insurance Company of North America (INA) issued an insurance policy on Godwin's Mercedes-Benz.
On June 11, 1972, Godwin was operating his motorcycle in Cleveland, Ohio when he was involved in a collision.
The other vehicle was owned and operated by James Luke, an Ohio resident.
Godwin's attorney investigated and determined that Luke was uninsured for personal injury liability at the time of the accident.

Procedural Posture:

Andrew C. Godwin demanded arbitration against his insurers, INA and Country-Wide, under the uninsured motorist provisions of their policies.
INA and Country-Wide each filed separate proceedings in the New York Supreme Court, Special Term (the trial court of first instance) seeking to stay (stop) the arbitration.
The Special Term denied the insurers' motions to stay arbitration.
INA and Country-Wide, as petitioners-appellants, appealed the Special Term's order to the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division (an intermediate appellate court).
Andrew C. Godwin is the respondent-respondent in the appeal.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a provision in an uninsured motorist endorsement of an automobile insurance policy, which limits coverage to accidents occurring only within the State of New York, violate the public policy of New York as expressed in the state's compulsory insurance law?

Opinions:

Majority - Witmer, J.

Yes. A territorial limitation restricting uninsured motorist coverage to in-state accidents is void because it conflicts with the overriding public policy of New York, as expressed in Insurance Law § 167(2-a), to ensure broad protection for its residents against injuries caused by financially irresponsible motorists. The statute mandates that any policy for a vehicle principally used in New York must provide this coverage, and this public policy is paramount to the freedom of contract. The court also held that INA's exclusionary clause for owned but uninsured 'automobiles' did not apply, as a motorcycle is not an 'automobile' under the policy's specific definition, and ambiguities are construed against the insurer. Because both policies contained mutually repugnant 'excess' insurance clauses, they cancel each other out, and both insurers are primary and must share the liability pro-rata.

Analysis:

This decision solidifies New York's strong public policy favoring broad uninsured motorist (UM) coverage for its residents. It establishes that insurers cannot use territorial restrictions to circumvent the mandatory coverage requirements of the Insurance Law, even if such restrictions are approved by regulators and offered for a reduced premium. The ruling prioritizes the protective purpose of the statute over the principle of freedom of contract in the context of compulsory insurance. This precedent significantly limits an insurer's ability to geographically restrict mandatory coverages and reinforces the pro-rata liability rule for policies with conflicting 'other insurance' clauses.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Insurance Co. of North America v. Godwin (1974)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"