62 N.Y.2d 748 | NY | 1984
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting). The fallacy in the reasoning of the Appellate Division and of the majority in this court is in their failure to distinguish between those who are entirely exempt from the liability insurance requirements of the Vehicle and Traffic Law and, consequently, from the uninsured motorists insurance requirement of subdivision 2-a of section 167 of the Insurance Law, and those who, though subject to liability insurance requirements, are permitted, upon demonstration of financial responsibility, to self-insure. Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. (Thom) (52 NY2d 1032) decided no more than that the Transit Authority did not qualify as a political subdivision exempted under subdivision 1 of section 370 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law and was, therefore, as a self-insurer, required to provide uninsured motorists coverage. And while Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Shaw (52 NY2d 818, 819)
Legislative policy with respect to the maintenance of insurance covering motor vehicle accidents is contained in Vehicle and Traffic Law, article 6 (Financial Security Act), article 7 (Safety Responsibility Act), article 8, covering passenger for hire vehicles, and article 48-A (Registration of Limited Use Vehicles), in Insurance Law, article 7 (Insurance Contract), article 18 (Comprehensive Automobile Insurance Reparations Act [commonly referred to as “no-fault”]), and article 52 (Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation [MVAIC] Act) and in PRHPL 25.13. Perusal of the pertinent sections of those enactments makes indelibly clear that, with but few and quite explicit exceptions, the Legislature has expressly exempted from their coverage the State and any political subdivision of the State.
To understand the legislative scheme, one must first consider the various ways in which persons injured or damaged by a motor vehicle are protected under the law. The method most generally applicable is coverage by a liability insurance policy or bond with limits at least equal to those set forth in section 311 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Such a policy must also protect the insured against bodily injury inflicted upon him or her by an uninsured motorist (Insurance Law, § 167, subd 2-a). In lieu of such a policy, a person seeking to register a motor vehicle may provide a financial security bond or deposit with the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles $25,000 in cash or specified securities plus an additional sum fixed by the Commissioner to cover his or her no-fault obligation (Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 311, subds 3, 6, 7). A further alternative for a person who has more than 25 vehicles registered in his or her name and who satisfies the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles that he or she will continue to be possessed of
Articles 18 and 52 of the Insurance Law supplement the above-described protections; article 18, by providing first-party benefits to the owner, operator or occupant of an insured motor vehicle without regard to fault; article 52, by providing the means within specified limits for a person, other than an insured or the owner of an uninsured motor vehicle, to obtain payment of a judgment for personal injury or death obtained against a financially irresponsible person (i.e., one whose liability is not covered by insurance, bond, deposit or self-insurance).
Not all motor vehicle owners are subject to all of the above-described financial responsibility requirements, however, and when the provisions establishing which owners are subject to the various requirements are considered it becomes apparent that a municipality is not obligated to provide uninsured motorists coverage. Thus, the Financial Security Act, which imposes the basic financial responsibility requirement, explicitly exempts “any motor vehicle owned by the United States, any state or any political subdivisions of any state”;
No-fault coverage is not the only instance illustrative of the Legislature’s intent to be selective as to the financial responsibility requirements governing governmental vehicles. Snowmobiles, because they are excluded from section 125 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law definition of “motor vehicle,” are not subject to the provisions of articles 6, 7 and 8 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, but, article 47 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, which provides separately for registration of snowmobiles, requires that a snowmobile owned by a governmental agency, other than the United States, or another State or political subdivision thereof, display a registration number (Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 2222, subds 10, 11) and PRHPL 25.13, which requires liability insurance coverage for any snowmobile operated on the roadway or shoulder of a highway, authorizes the Commissioner of Parks upon application of a governmental to “waive the requirement of insurance by a private insurance carrier and issue a certificate of self-insurance, when he is satisfied that such governmental agency
The foregoing somewhat tedious recitation establishes that a municipality which owns motor vehicles is neither required to carry private insurance nor to make application to the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles for a certificate of self-insurance,
Those two specific exceptions demonstrate that when it intended to subject governmental vehicles to insurance requirements the Legislature was well aware of the appropriate method of doing so. They also remove any basis for inferring as to governmental vehicles, as did the Shaw case (on the reasoning of which the majority here and in the Appellate Division rely) with respect to nongovernmental vehicles, a legislative intent to require uninsured motorists coverage for municipally owned vehicles.
Realistically, of course, there will be here no “diminution of protection of highway users,” on which the Shaw memorandum (52 NY2d, at p 820) based its conclusion. The issue
Order affirmed, etc.
. Subdivision 1 of section 321 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Subdivision 2 of section 311 also excludes fire and police vehicles from the definition of “motor vehicle” as used in the act, as does section 5202 (subd A, par 1) of the Insurance Law exclude them from the MVAIC Act. Presumably the separate exemption of fire and police vehicles is required because such vehicles, as defined in sections 115-a and 132-a of the Vehicle and Traffic Law may be owned by government or nonprofit entities which would not qualify as the State or a political subdivision of the State.
. Section 359 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law also excludes from the definition of “person” (subd [d]) “the state or any political subdivision thereof” and from the definition of “motor vehicle” (subd [k]) “fire and police vehicles” (as to which see n 1 above).
. By article 48-A of the Vehicle and Traffic Law limited use vehicles, defined by
. PRHPL 21.05 (subd 1) defines “governmental agency” to “mean any agency of the state of New York and all municipalities within the state.”
. Although, as above noted, a snowmobile is not a “motor vehicle” for other purposes (Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 125), section 316 expressly provides that as to self-insurance “the term ‘motor vehicle’ shall include ‘snowmobiles’ ”,
. A further indication of the Legislature’s intent can be found in subdivision 1 of section 321 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, and subdivision 1 of section 672 of the Insurance Law. Had it deemed the city an owner which maintained another form of financial security (i.e., a self-insurer) and thus within the latter provision, it need not have explicitly made no-fault applicable to governmental vehicles as those subdivisions explicitly do.
Lead Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Order affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the memorandum of the Appellate Division (96 AD2d 471).
