New York Court of Appeals, 1980

Leudemann v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance

New York Court of Appeals · Decided October 14, 1980 · Cooke, Fuchsberg, Gabrielli, Jasen, Jones, Meyer, Wachtler

51 N.Y.2d 828; 413 N.E.2d 362; 433 N.Y.S.2d 423; 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2683

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Grange Mutual Companies v. Bradshaw (Ky. Ct. App. 1986)
Gardner v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
Tel-Tru Manufacturing Co. v. North River Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, summary judgment granted to defendants and the certified question answered in the negative.

Under the terms of the insurance policy held by Marion Leudemann, her son, Richard, was covered for accidents while driving a "non-owned * * * private passenger automobile or trailer”. A private passenger automobile is defined in the policy as "a four wheel private passenger, station wagon or jeep type automobile”. Additionally, the policy separately defines a "utility automobile” as "an automobile, other than a *830farm automobile, with a load capacity of fifteen hundred pounds or less of the pick-up body, sedan delivery or panel truck type not used for business or commercial purposes”. It is beyond question that vehicles classified as utility automobiles were not covered by the contract as private passenger automobiles. Defendant maintains that, insofar as the accident took place while Richard was driving a nonowned pickup truck, he was not covered by the terms of this policy.

We agree that the policy unambiguously limited coverage provided to relatives of the named insured. While the policy could have provided coverage without restriction as to vehicle type, as it did for accidents in which the named insured was the driver, the contract did not so provide. Under the facts of this case, a pickup truck is clearly a noncovered utility vehicle, and coverage should be denied.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.