Leudemann v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance

413 N.E.2d 362, 51 N.Y.2d 828, 433 N.Y.S.2d 423, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2683
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedOctober 14, 1980
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 413 N.E.2d 362 (Leudemann v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Leudemann v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance, 413 N.E.2d 362, 51 N.Y.2d 828, 433 N.Y.S.2d 423, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2683 (N.Y. 1980).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, summary judgment granted to defendants and the certified question answered in the negative.

Under the terms of the insurance policy held by Marion Leudemann, her son, Richard, was covered for accidents while driving a "non-owned * * * private passenger automobile or trailer”. A private passenger automobile is defined in the policy as "a four wheel private passenger, station wagon or jeep type automobile”. Additionally, the policy separately defines a "utility automobile” as "an automobile, other than a [830]*830farm automobile, with a load capacity of fifteen hundred pounds or less of the pick-up body, sedan delivery or panel truck type not used for business or commercial purposes”. It is beyond question that vehicles classified as utility automobiles were not covered by the contract as private passenger automobiles. Defendant maintains that, insofar as the accident took place while Richard was driving a nonowned pickup truck, he was not covered by the terms of this policy.

We agree that the policy unambiguously limited coverage provided to relatives of the named insured. While the policy could have provided coverage without restriction as to vehicle type, as it did for accidents in which the named insured was the driver, the contract did not so provide. Under the facts of this case, a pickup truck is clearly a noncovered utility vehicle, and coverage should be denied.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.

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

Related

Gardner v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.
261 A.D.2d 505 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Grange Mutual Companies v. Bradshaw
724 S.W.2d 216 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1986)
Tel-Tru Manufacturing Co. v. North River Insurance
90 A.D.2d 670 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
413 N.E.2d 362, 51 N.Y.2d 828, 433 N.Y.S.2d 423, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2683, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leudemann-v-prudential-property-casualty-insurance-ny-1980.