Yankelevitz v. Royal Globe Insurance
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- Insurance Co. of North America v. Zaglool (District Court, E.D. New York 2007)
- Empire Mutual Insurance v. Fleischman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- Foster v. Svenson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Harkins (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Black v. Allstate Ins. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- Mathieu v. Commercial Mutual Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- Federal Insurance v. McCampbell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- Government Employees Insurance v. Pagano (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- Suba v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
- American Motorists Insurance v. Salvatore (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
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
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
We perceive no constitutional infirmity in the provision of subdivision 3 of section 167 of the Insurance Law, which operates to exclude coverage for liability of the insured for personal injury or property damage claims by the insured’s spouse where the culpable conduct of the insured is in issue, unless the policy expressly declares such coverage. Plaintiff’s contention that the Legislature’s failure to require that the insurance policy expressly give notice to the insured of this exclusion denies him due process is without merit. The insured has ample notice of the terms of the exclusion by virtue of the statutory provision itself, which is deemed included as a policy provision (Employers’ Liab. Assur. Corp. v Aresty, 11 AD2d 331, 334, affd on opn below 11 NY2d 696; New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v Stecker, 1 AD2d 629, affd 3 NY2d 1). Moreover, the determination of the Legislature to apply this exclusion only to spouses is not violative of equal protection. The provision is designed to discourage collusive insurance claims between spouses involved in automobile accidents. A rational basis clearly exists to justify whatever classification may be created by the statute.
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer and Simons concur.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.