An Application of Langan

Matter of Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v Burrous, 2014 NY Slip Op 06986

“From the eyes of the decedent”

“Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, Utica is not entitled to a permanent stay of arbitration, and that branch of its petition should have been denied. In State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Langan (16 NY3d 349), the Court of Appeals held that, for the purposes of an uninsured motorist endorsement, when an occurrence is “unexpected, unusual and unforeseen,” from the insured’s perspective, it qualifies as an “accident” (id. at 355 ). Here, from the decedent’s perspective, her collision with Demoliere’s vehicle was unexpected, unusual, and unforeseen. Therefore, the occurrence constituted an “accident” within the meaning of the uninsured motorist endorsement of the decedent’s policy (see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Langan, 16 NY3d at 355-357; see Matter of Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co. v Vanderpool, 85 AD3d 926, 927)”

It is an inquiry of whether the recipient of PIP benefits or seeking UM benefits was part of the intentional loss.  In a staged loss scenario, this is colloquially stated a “no-brainer.”  When the issue involves the victim of someone on a death wish (who is not Charles Bronson), it is a different story.

Related Articles

• Understanding the “from your perspective” standard in intentional loss cases
• Proof requirements for establishing intentional accidents in New York
• Recent verdict upholding intentional loss determination
• Staged accident allegations and insurance coverage disputes
• New York No-Fault Insurance Law

Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2014 post discussing the Langan standard for determining “accidents” from the insured’s perspective, practitioners should verify current case law developments, as subsequent appellate decisions may have refined or expanded the application of the “unexpected, unusual and unforeseen” test in intentional loss scenarios involving uninsured motorist coverage and PIP benefits.