Brown v. Keefe
Opinion of the Court
—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiffs were seriously injured while passengers in a vehicle driven by defendant Michael T. Keefe. At the time of the accident, Michael Keefe lived at home with his mother, de
Although it is undisputed that Michael Keefe was a “family member” for purposes of the policy, the record does not otherwise support Metropolitan’s contention that the exclusion applies. With respect to ownership, the complaints alleged that the vehicle involved in the accident was owned by a third party. Although there was testimony that Michael Keefe was considering purchasing the vehicle, there is no evidence that he had actual ownership of the vehicle on the day of the accident.
In determining whether a vehicle was available for “regular use”, factors to consider “ ‘include the general availability of the vehicle and the frequency of its use by the insured’ ” (Egle v United Servs. Auto. Assn., 158 AD2d 661, 663; see also, New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v Jennings, 195 AD2d 541, 542). The record establishes that Michael Keefe drove the vehicle only once, on the day of the accident. That is insufficient to establish that Michael Keefe had “ ‘regular use’ ” of the vehicle (Hollander v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 60 AD2d 380, 384, lv denied 44 NY2d 646). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Cass, J. — Declaratory Judgment.) Present — Denman, P. J., Hayes, Pigott, Jr., and Fallon, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.