Uncategorized

Published on: May 1, 2026

First Department Clarifies Impact of Graves Amendment on Rental Car Insurance Coverage: Second Child v. Edge Auto, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 01432

by Stephen Bilkis

Motor vehicle accidents involving rental vehicles often raise complicated insurance coverage issues. In New York, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 370 requires rental car companies to maintain certain insurance coverage for vehicles they place on the road. For many years, courts interpreted the statute as requiring rental companies to provide primary insurance coverage to renters up to the statutory minimum limits. However, Congress changed the legal landscape when it enacted the Graves Amendment in 2005.

In Second Child v. Edge Auto, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 01432, the Appellate Division, First Department, considered whether a rental car company and its insurer were required to provide primary insurance coverage and indemnification to renters involved in a motor vehicle accident. The decision addressed the interaction between Vehicle and Traffic Law § 370, the Court of Appeals’ decision in ELRAC, Inc. v. Ward, 96 N.Y.2d 58 (2001), and the federal Graves Amendment. The case provides important guidance regarding the extent of a rental car company’s insurance obligations in New York.

Background Facts

Published on: May 22, 2025

Summary Judgment Granted for Plaintiffs After Fatal Car Crash. Spivak v. Heyward, 248 A.D.2d 58 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

by Stephen Bilkis

In a case involving a fatal car accident, the Appellate Division addressed whether a driver who admitted to falling asleep at the wheel could be found negligent as a matter of law. The lower court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, but the appellate court reversed. The case clarified the legal standards for holding drivers responsible when they fall asleep while operating a vehicle.

Background Facts
The plaintiffs brought a lawsuit after their son died in a car accident. He had been a passenger in a vehicle driven by defendant Timothy M. Heyward. According to the evidence, Heyward fell asleep while driving. As a result, the car left the roadway and went down an embankment, causing the death of the passenger.

In support of their motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs presented evidence showing that Heyward had admitted to falling asleep at the wheel. The defendants did not offer any evidence to dispute that admission. However, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion, finding that it could not determine negligence as a matter of law based solely on Heyward’s admission.

Published on: January 20, 2025

Plaintiff’s car accident injury claim dismissed due to treatment gap and intervening condition. Pommells v. Perez, 4 N.Y.3d 566 (N.Y. 2005)

by Stephen Bilkis

Under New York law, “serious injuries” are defined under Insurance Law § 5102(d) as injuries resulting in specific, significant harm. These include death, dismemberment, significant disfigurement, fractures, loss of a fetus, permanent loss or limitation of use of a body organ or system, or medically determined injuries impairing daily activities for at least 90 days within 180 days post-accident. This definition determines whether a plaintiff can pursue damages beyond basic economic losses in motor vehicle accident cases.

In Pommells v. Perez the Court of Appeals examined New York’s No-Fault Law and its “serious injury” in the context of personal injury claims arising from a car accident. The case demonstrates the challenges of proving serious injuries under the law, particularly when gaps in treatment or preexisting conditions are involved.

Background Facts