From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marvul v. Knecht

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 12, 1995
216 A.D.2d 370 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

June 12, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (I. Aronin, J.).


Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The defendant Charles Knecht, Jr., was involved in an automobile accident that resulted in the death of Aaron Marvul (hereinafter the underlying accident). After commencing an action to recover damages, inter alia, for negligence, the plaintiff (the mother of Aaron Marvul) commenced this declaratory judgment action against Charles Knecht, Jr., his parents (Christine Knecht and Charles Knecht, Sr.), State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (hereinafter State Farm), and Zurich-American Insurance Group (hereinafter Zurich). The plaintiff alleged that policy number BO7 1700-A09-32A, admittedly issued by State Farm to Christine Knecht and Charles Knecht, Sr., for a 1989 Ford Crown Victoria and another insurance policy allegedly issued by Zurich to Charles Knecht, Sr., for a 1978 Chevrolet van provide insurance coverage to Charles Knecht, Jr., as a family member of the policy holders. The plaintiff sought a declaration that the insurance coverage provided by these two policies may be added to the insurance coverage provided by the policy issued by State Farm for the vehicle actually involved in the underlying accident, a 1987 Chevrolet Cavalier. We affirm the Supreme Court's grant of summary judgment to both State Farm and Zurich and its declarations that State Farm, pursuant to insurance policy number B07 1700-A09-32A, and Zurich are not obligated to provide insurance coverage for the underlying accident.

State Farm insurance policy number BO7 1700-A09-32A expressly and permissibly excludes a family member's use of an automobile, other than the insured automobile (see, e.g., Egle v. United Servs. Auto. Assn., 158 A.D.2d 661; Meyer v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 81 A.D.2d 609; 70 N.Y. Jur 2d, Insurance, §§ 1506, 1507). Thus, State Farm policy number B07 1700-A09-32A does not provide insurance coverage for the underlying accident.

Further, the plaintiff failed to proffer evidence in an admissible form that the policy allegedly issued by Zurich for the 1978 Chevrolet van existed and that the van was owned by Charles Knecht, Sr. (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557). Thus, Zurich is not obliged to provide insurance coverage for the underlying accident.

We have considered the plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Copertino and Santucci, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Marvul v. Knecht

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 12, 1995
216 A.D.2d 370 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Marvul v. Knecht

Case Details

Full title:MARSHA MARVUL, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of AARON…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 12, 1995

Citations

216 A.D.2d 370 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
628 N.Y.S.2d 171

Citing Cases

Sunrise Acupuncture P.C. v. Kemper Independence Ins. Co.

We sustain the denial of defendant-insurer's motion for summary judgment. Although defendant asserted that…

Sunrise Acupuncture P.C. v. Kemper Independence Ins. Co.

We sustain the denial of defendant-insurer's motion for summary judgment. Although defendant asserted that…