Estate of Cepeda v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

37 A.D.2d 454, 326 N.Y.S.2d 864, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2748
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 9, 1971
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 37 A.D.2d 454 (Estate of Cepeda v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Estate of Cepeda v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 37 A.D.2d 454, 326 N.Y.S.2d 864, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2748 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Opinion

Stetjeb, J.

This is a special proceeding to determine which of respondents, an insurance company or Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation, is required to arbitrate with the petitioners. The issue in the proceeding is whether at the time of the accident petitioners were passengers in the automobile of the insured. We do not agree with Trial Term’s conclusion that they were not.

The facts are not in serious dispute. Petitioners are the estates of persons who were passengers in the automobile of Giron, the insured, as it was proceeding east on the Cross-Bronx Expressway. Giron believed .that his car was hit by a car driven by Carey, and both vehicles pulled over to the side of the roadway. Carey maintained that his car had not touched Giron’s car, and pointed to the fact, claimed by him, that no marks appeared on the rear of Giron’s car, the alleged point of contact. Giron and Carey went to the rear of Giron’s car to verify this claim and the decedents got out of the car to join them. It was while they were all in the roadway that another car, later found to have been stolen, sped past, hitting Carey and the decedents and killing the latter instantly.

The question presented by these facts is whether the decedents by stepping out of Giron’s car in the manner in which they did ceased to be passengers and hence to have the coverage of Giron’s insurance. Not every physical departure from the vehicle results in termination of status as a passenger (Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. Flaumenbaum, 62 Misc 2d 32; Matter of Shindler v. MV AIC, 41 Misc 2d 590; Matter of MV AIC v. Oppedisano, 41 Misc 2d 1029). Where the departure is incident to some temporary interruption in the journey of the vehicle, as when there is a mechanical failure and the passenger gets out to help or even to observe the work of the driver, he does not cease to be a passenger (State-Wide Ins. Co. v. Murdock, 31 A D 2d 978; Matter of Pagan [MV AIC], 51 Misc 2d 664). The situation here is indistinguishable. Where the passenger alights following some temporary interruption at a place other than his destination, remains in the immediate vicinity of the vehicle and [456]*456there is every reason to believe that, had it not been for the accident, he would shortly have resumed his place in the vehicle, his status as a passenger has not changed.

Judgment entered May 1,1970 (Loreto, J.) should be reversed on the law, stay of arbitration against respondent United ¡States Fidelity and Guaranty Company vacated and stay of arbitration against MVAIC granted, with costs to appellant against respondent United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company.

Markewich, J. P., Kupeerman, Murphy and Tilzer, JJ., concur.

Judgment, 'Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered on or about May 1, 1970, unanimously reversed, on the law, and vacated, the stay of arbitration against respondent United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company vacated and the stay of arbitration against MVAIC granted. Appellant shall recover of defendant-respondent $30 costs and disbursements of this appeal.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Progressive Advanced Ins. Co. v. Talmadge
2022 NY Slip Op 03913 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v. Nakhla
140 A.D.3d 762 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
BOYSON, KAREN v. KWASOWSKY, IRENE
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015
Boyson v. Kwasowsky
129 A.D.3d 151 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
AUTO-OWNERS INS. v. Above All Roofing, LLC
924 So. 2d 842 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
In re Martinez
295 A.D.2d 277 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Genthner v. Progressive Casualty Insurance
681 A.2d 479 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1996)
Travelers Insurance v. Wright
202 A.D.2d 680 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Rohlman v. Hawkeye-Security Insurance
502 N.W.2d 310 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1993)
Kentucky Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. McKinney
831 S.W.2d 164 (Kentucky Supreme Court, 1992)
State Farm Automobile Insurance v. Antunovich
160 A.D.2d 1009 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Colon v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
399 N.E.2d 938 (New York Court of Appeals, 1980)
Colon v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
64 A.D.2d 498 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)
In re the Arbitration between Williams
64 A.D.2d 637 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)
Aetna Insurance v. Espinosa
92 Misc. 2d 200 (New York Supreme Court, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
37 A.D.2d 454, 326 N.Y.S.2d 864, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-cepeda-v-united-states-fidelity-guaranty-co-nyappdiv-1971.