Key Takeaway
Important Nakhla case clarifies "use and operation" coverage when person exits vehicle and is struck - affects first-party benefits and SUM coverage priority rules.
This article is part of our ongoing use and operation coverage, with 14 published articles analyzing use and operation issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
This case is interesting. It was always understood that when someone exited their vehicle for a limited purpose and another vehicle hit that person, first-party coverage should be provided by the carrier of their own vehicle.
But there was also a belief that the person who exited the said vehicle was also a pedestrian and the insurance carrier of the vehicle that hit said person would also be liable for first-party benefits. Nakhla tells us otherwise. This is a must read for when you get the inevitable use and operation question.
Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Nakhla, 2016 NY Slip Op 04219 (2d Dept. 2016)
(1) “ORDERED that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, those branches of the petition which were to join PSK Hacking Corp., EKAM Transportation, and American Transit Insurance Company as additional respondents to the proceeding and to temporarily stay arbitration pending a hearing on the relative liability of the petitioner and American Transit Insurance Company are granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.”
(2) “On July 17, 2012, Peter Nakhla was driving a taxicab owned by PSK Hacking Corp., registered to EKAM Transportation, and insured by American Transit Insurance Company (hereinafter American Transit). Nakhla was stopped at an intersection when another vehicle struck the taxicab in the rear. When Nakhla exited the taxicab to look for damage to the taxicab, the offending vehicle drove away and collided with Nakhla, who was now outside the taxicab. The offending vehicle left the scene and is unidentified.”
(3) “Although Nakhla’s personal vehicle was not involved in the accident, Nakhla qualified for SUM coverage under the GEICO policy insuring his personal vehicle under the provision which provides coverage for the named insured. However, the priority of coverage provision in GEICO’s policy provided that the uninsured motorist or SUM coverage, if any, under the policy insuring the vehicle occupied by him was to be applied first, and prohibited the stacking of policies.”
(4) “Thus, the crucial issue of fact in this case is whether Nakhla occupied his taxicab at the time of the second impact and, therefore, whether the policy limits of American Transit, which insured the taxicab, should be applied first. GEICO’s policy defines “occupying” as “in, upon, entering into, or exiting from a motor vehicle”—a definition taken from Insurance Law § 3420(f)(3), which defines occupying as “in or upon or entering into or alighting from” a vehicle. The question is whether “a departure from a vehicle is occasioned by or is incident to some temporary interruption in the journey and the occupant remains in the immediate vicinity of the vehicle and, upon completion of the objective occasioned by the brief interruption, he intends to resume his place in the vehicle” (Matter of Rice v Allstate Ins. Co., 32 NY2d 6, 10-11). Here, GEICO established that Nakhla was an occupant of the taxicab at the time of the second impact through the submission of Nakhla’s examination under oath testimony, which indicated that he alighted from the taxicab after the first impact to determine whether it had been damaged
Related Articles
- Person who parks and exits vehicle to direct traffic is not using or operating the truck
- The buckling knee when exiting vehicle coverage analysis
- Occupation of vehicle while rearranging items from outside
- Use and operation coverage construed liberally for proximate cause
- SUM endorsement interpretation versus no-fault endorsement
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.
Keep Reading
More Use and Operation Analysis
Use and Operation again and again
NY court finds excavator on public highway meets "use and operation" standard for no-fault coverage, even when temporarily parked and unattended during construction work.
Jun 8, 2018Use and operation, again
Court case analysis examining "use and operation" coverage when bus driver refused to activate lift device, comparing to Cividanes precedent and questioning the legal distinction.
Feb 24, 2018Coverage – use or operation
New York court clarifies that auto insurance coverage extends beyond vehicle operation to include related activities like luggage handling at bus stops.
Jan 26, 2018On the motorcycle and hit again – Is there coverage?
Court rules motorcycle passenger thrown from bike but struck by it again remains "occupying" vehicle for no-fault insurance exclusion purposes in complex accident case.
May 27, 2015Use, Operation and proximate cause liberally construed to afford coverage
New York no-fault insurance coverage expanded through liberal construction of use, operation and proximate cause requirements in rescue injury case.
May 14, 2013Use and Operation
Cividanes v City of New York case analysis examining "use and operation" requirements for no-fault coverage when plaintiff injured exiting bus into pothole.
Mar 1, 2012Common Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
What does "use and operation" mean in no-fault insurance?
Under Insurance Law §5102(b), no-fault benefits are available for injuries arising from the "use or operation" of a motor vehicle. This requires a causal connection between the vehicle and the injury. The vehicle must be more than just the situs (location) of the injury — there must be a direct nexus between the vehicle's use and the harm suffered.
What injuries qualify as arising from "use and operation" of a vehicle?
Qualifying injuries include those from driving, riding as a passenger, loading/unloading cargo, or being struck by a vehicle. Courts apply a proximate cause analysis. Injuries that merely happen near a vehicle (like slipping on ice in a parking lot unrelated to any vehicle) typically do not qualify.
Can pedestrians claim no-fault benefits under "use and operation"?
Yes. Pedestrians struck by motor vehicles are covered under no-fault as "eligible injured persons" under Insurance Law §5102(j). They can claim benefits from the vehicle's insurer. The "use and operation" requirement is readily satisfied when a pedestrian is hit by a moving vehicle.
Was this article helpful?
About the Author
Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.
Jason Tenenbaum is the founding attorney of the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., headquartered at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, New York 11746. With over 24 years of experience since founding the firm in 2002, Jason has written more than 1,000 appeals, handled over 100,000 no-fault insurance cases, and recovered over $100 million for clients across Long Island, Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island. He is one of the few attorneys in the state who both writes his own appellate briefs and tries his own cases.
Jason is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Michigan state courts, as well as multiple federal courts. His 2,353+ published legal articles analyzing New York case law, procedural developments, and litigation strategy make him one of the most prolific legal commentators in the state. He earned his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University College of Law.
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a use and operation matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.