Harris v Direct Gen. Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 08961 (4th Dept. 2017)
(1) “We have previously stated that, generally, ownership is in the registered owner of the vehicle or one holding the documents of title, but a party may rebut the inference that arises from these circumstances”
(2) “defendant submitted plaintiff’s testimony that he was the co-owner of the vehicle, and that he and his fiancée paid for the vehicle, its maintenance, and a Florida insurance policy that did not cover plaintiff. Nevertheless, defendant also submitted the registration, title, and insurance documents for the vehicle, all of which list plaintiff’s father as the owner. ”
Courts found a triable issue of fact as to whether Plaintiff owned the vehicle. Makes sense to me. The matter should go to trial.
2 Responses
The key facts that are not set forth in the court’s decision is that it was defendants principal argument (1) they were co owners and (2) plaintiff admitted at the EBT they were co owners (3) plaintiff essentially admitted at the EBT they put the registration in the fathers name as a convenience only and (4) no denial of ownership by either plaintiff Or the purported owner/father was submitted in opposition. Courts conclusion there was conflicting eviDEnce of ownership is Not Accurate.
I read the entire online case file and to me, it screamed triable issue of fact. You also were in front of a judge in Syracuse who is not fond of no-fault cases being prosecuted in Syracuse and an Appellate Division that is highly deferential to Supreme Court judges. Just try the case – you should be able to get a jury to agree with you.