Source: https://mdafny.com/index.aspx?TypeContent=CUSTOMPAGEARTICLE&custom_pages_articlesID=14755
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 12:59:55+00:00

Document:
The word "occupant" is ascribed its normal dictionary meaning by the courts. Thus, in Innes v. Public Service Mut. Ins. Co.,5 the plaintiff as operator of his motorcycle is also an "occupant" and is properly excluded from no-fault coverage.
In Fleming v. Allstate Ins. Co.,7 a party was straddling a motorcycle with both feet on the shoulder of the road talking to another individual without sitting on the motorcycle at the time he was struck by an automobile. The court held that he was "occupying a motorcycle" within the no-fault insurance policy thus excluding coverage for individuals occupying a motorcycle.
Oftentimes, the passenger of a motorcycle is the spouse of the operator. Should the spouse become injured by the negligence of his or her operator/spouse, the rules of spousal coverage apply. Section 313 of the New York State General Obligations Law passed in 1937 allowed a married woman to sue her husband, thus doing away with spousal immunity.10 Simultaneously, however, in 1937, Section 3420(a)11 of the Insurance Law was passed which required that, unless an express provision is in the policy of insurance, no policy of insurance was deemed to insure a spouse for injury where the injured spouse must prove the culpable conduct of the insured's spouse. Thus, in the case of motorcyclists, spousal coverage must also specifically be purchased or an injury due to the spouse's negligence will not be covered. Typically, the cost of spousal coverage in a policy is 5 percent higher than a policy without such coverage.
CPLR 1601(1), providing limited liability of persons jointly liable, does not apply to motorcyclists, as motorcyclists are specifically exempted from the limitation of liability under CPLR 1602(6).27 Thus, if a jury finds a defendant motorcyclist 1 percent liable, the plaintiff may elect to execute the whole judgment against the defendant motorcyclist and leave that defendant motorcyclist to recover the proportionate share of the judgment against the remaining defendants.
A novel theory of liability was pleaded by a motorcycle rider in Crawford v. Village of Millbrook.35 The motorcyclist alleged that at the time of his accident an insufficiently large amount of gravel on the road created a hazard which caused his accident. He produced eyewitnesses and a paving expert to support his theory. The court reversed the defendant Village's motion for summary judgment as a matter of law. Plaintiff was allowed to proceed to a new trial on whether the defendant negligently resurfaced the road one month earlier.
A final concept to be familiar with in handling motorcycle litigation is the fact that a motorcycle is afforded coverage under the uninsured (UM) endorsement of an automobile policy.36 As such, an insurer that issues an automobile liability policy will be liable to pay the insured motorist benefits to the occupants of a motorcycle in the event they are uninsured.
In all personal injury cases thorough preparation and familiarity with the applicable statutes and case law is crucial to proper handling. This is especially true in motorcycle litigation. In a weak economy, more people will turn to motorcycles for transportation and as a result, claims will rise. It is the obligation of the practitioner to learn the nuances of this area of the law; and that is no easy ride.
5. Innes v. Public Service Mut. Ins. Co., 106 A.D.2d 899, 483 N.Y.S.2d 874 (4th Dept 1984).
7. Fleming v. Allstate Ins. Co., 102 Misc.2d 994, 424 N.Y.S.2d 831 (Sup. Ct. 1980).
10. General Obligations Law 3-313.
12. Vehicle and Traffic Law 1250.
13. Vehicle and Traffic Law 1252(a).
14. Vehicle and Traffic Law 1252(d).
15. Pattern Jury Instructions 2:26.
16. Vehicle and Traffic Law 1252(b).
17. Vehicle and Traffic Law 1252(c).
18. Vehicle and Traffic Law 1253.
19. Vehicle and Traffic Law 381.
20. Vehicle and Traffic Law 381(6).
21. Vehicle and Traffic Law 381(7).
22. Vehicle and Traffic Law 381(8).
23. Vehicle and Traffic Law 1250.
24. Vehicle and Traffic Law 1251(a).
25. Vehicle and Traffic Law 1251(b).
26. Vehicle and Traffic Law 121(c).
28. Vehicle and Traffic Law 123.
29. Vehicle and Traffic Law 2265, 15 NYCRR 102.4(a)(2)(a)(3).
30. Vehicle and Traffic Law 381(6), Vehicle and Traffic Law 381(7).
32. Vehicle and Traffic Law 2261(1), 15 NYCRR 102.2(b)(2).
33. Vehicle and Traffic Law 2262.
34. Vehicle and Traffic Law 2265(3).
35. Crawford v. Village of Millbrook, 61 A.D.3d 918, 878 N.Y.S.2d 149 (2d Dept 2009).
36. Lalomia v. Bankers & Shippers Insurance Company, 31 N.Y.2d 830, 291 N.E.2d 724 (1972)(where the Court of Appeals held that an uninsured motorized bicycle qualified for UM coverage under an automobile policy); Country-Wide Ins. Co. v. Wagoner, 45 N.Y.2d 581, 384 N.E.2d 653 (1978); (where the Court of Appeals determined that a motorcycle operator, who was a resident of his father's home, was an insured under his father's auto policy for purposes of UM benefits); Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. Riccadulli, 183 A.D.2d 111, 589 N.Y.S.2d 356 (2d Dept 1992); Home Mut. Ins. Co. of Binghamton N.Y. v. Marlin, 82 A.D.2d 807, 439 N.Y.S.2d 404 (2d Dept 1981); Matter of St. John, 105 A.D.2d 530, 481 N.Y.S.2d 787 (3d Dept 1984); Len v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 80 A.D.2d 682, 436 N.Y.S.2d 431 (3d Dept 1981);Geiger v. Insurance Co. of North America, 41 A.D.2d 796, 341 N.Y.S.2d 481 (3d Dept 1973).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.