Matter of GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v Wesco Ins. Co., 2022 NY Slip Op 06926 (2d Dept. 2023)
“The arbitrator’s interpretation of the rental agreement between Saha and New Country as relieving Wesco of its obligation to provide mandatory personal injury protection (hereinafter PIP) coverage was contrary to 11 NYCRR part 65, which provides, in effect, that all motor vehicle insurance policies must contain a mandatory PIP endorsement; expressly sets forth the language of the PIP endorsement; permits deviations from the prescribed language only upon prior approval; and prohibits any release, express or implied, from mandatory or optional PIP benefits (see 11 NYCRR 65-1.1, 65-1.7, 65-3.18). “
Matter of GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v Wesco Ins. Co., 2022 NY Slip Op 06927 (2d Dept. 2023)
“In March 2017, nonparty Linotte Dhaiti was injured when she was involved in a motor vehicle collision while operating a loaner vehicle owned by nonparty New Rochelle Hyundai, LLC, and insured by Wesco Insurance Company (hereinafter Wesco). GEICO Indemnity Company (hereinafter GEICO) paid no-fault benefits to Dhaiti for her injuries pursuant to an automobile liability policy issued to her. GEICO thereafter sought to recover the benefits paid to Dhaiti from Wesco in a compulsory arbitration proceeding. In an arbitration award dated May 23, 2019, the arbitrator determined that Wesco, as insurer of the loaner vehicle operated by Dhaiti, was liable for the benefits paid to Dhaiti.”
Affirmed.
This one is interesting if only because if you research the coverage issue on loaner cars, you will learn that the insurance carrier of the one who “rented” this vehicle is actually primary on the third-party indemnity and defense side. I do not recall the Appellate Division case but I did write a coverage opinion letter on the issue.
The argument is therefore Elrac v. Ward does not apply to this fact pattern. And as you see, that is just not the case.
