Murzik Taxi, Inc. v Lutheran Med. Ctr., 2021 NY Slip Op 02302 (2d Dept. 2011)
This case is is a an interesting loss for the Medallions and the black cars registered as Ubers. In avoiding a $58,000 hospital bill, it looks like the rules for this segment of the no-fault motoring population have changed.
“In the alternative, the plaintiff asserts that, as a self-insurer, its bond or policy was limited to $50,000 (see 11 NYCRR 65-2.2[a], [c]). Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, taxicab owners, such as the plaintiff, are required to maintain liability coverage through an insurance policy or bond in an amount not less than $200,000 per person for basic economic losses (see Rules of City of NY Taxi and Limousine Commn [35 RCNY] § 58-13[d][1][i]; see also Mount Sinai Hosp. v Dust Tr., Inc., 104 AD3d 823, 823-824). Further, the plaintiff failed to submit the insurance policy or bond, or any other documentary evidence for that matter, to establish that the insurance coverage was exhausted.”
Look at the underlined portion and tell me what that means. For one, I can tell you American Transit’s verification protocols on larger level claims are probably improper and will create another bad faith and GBL 349 argument. But think about what this could mean for loss transfer… wow..
2 Responses
Obviously, you should have used the title “Dusted”, since that decision clearly set ATIC’s “no-fault coverage of $200,000, which was the amount of coverage required by the Rules of the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC Rules) (see TLC Rules [35 RCNY] § 58-13 [a] [1]; [d] [1] [i])”.
The thing is that 11 NYCRR 2.2(b) does clearly limit a self-insurer’s liability for basic economic coverage to $50,000 unless OBEL is purchased (which I’ve never actually seen myself). So 35 RCNY 58-13(d)(1)(i) would seem like it needs to be treated like mandatory APIP as far as I can tell.
I am just following the verbatim wording of the App. Div. $200,000 in basic economic loss… sounds like the verification game once $50k is reached is over ??