October 21, 2026

Matter of Erie Ins. Co. v Rodriguez (2026 NY Slip Op 06115)

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-erie-ins-co-v-rodriguez-2026-ny-slip-op-06115/

Court: Appellate Division, Second Department
Decided: October 21, 2026
Citation: 2026 NY Slip Op 06115
Posture: Other motion
Outcome: Insurer prevailed
Issues: SUM / uninsured motorist

Cite as

Matter of Erie Ins. Co. v Rodriguez, 2026 NY Slip Op 06115 (2d Dept 2026)

Posture, outcome, issues and treatment by other decisions are Beynenson Law’s classification. Treatment labels are assigned by a language model reading the citing decision; negative and appeal-history labels are checked by a second reader.

Summary

Editorial summary by Beynenson Law, not part of the court’s decision.

SUM coverage was not triggered because the tortfeasor's combined bodily injury liability limits exceeded the claimant's policy liability limits. The tortfeasor had primary automobile and umbrella coverage, while the claimant sought SUM benefits under the policy covering the vehicle the claimant operated. Under Insurance Law § 3420 (f) (2) (A), the comparison includes the liability limits of all bodily injury insurance policies covering the tortfeasor's vehicle. Following Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Rivera, SUM coverage is triggered only when those limits are less than the third-party liability limits of the policy under which benefits are sought. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the order, insofar as appealed from, adhering on reargument to a permanent stay of arbitration; the claimant's remaining contention was not reached.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Matter of Erie Ins. Co. v Rodriguez (2026 NY Slip Op 06115)

Matter of Erie Ins. Co. v Rodriguez

2026 NY Slip Op 06115

Decided on October 21, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

In the Matter of Erie Insurance Company, respondent,

Hector Rodriguez, appellant.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on October 21, 2026

2025-07173, (Index No. 614856/24)

Francesca E. Connolly, J.P.

Valerie Brathwaite Nelson

Barry E. Warhit

James P. McCormack, JJ.

Cellino Law, Melville, NY (Joshua B. Sandberg of counsel), for appellant.

Hurwitz Fine, P.C., Buffalo, NY (Evan D. Gestwick of counsel), for respondent.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of a claim for supplemental underinsured motorist benefits, Hector Rodriguez appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (David T. Reilly, J.), dated June 3, 2025. The order, insofar as appealed from, upon reargument, adhered to a determination in an order of the same court dated May 13, 2025, granting the amended petition to permanently stay arbitration of the claim for supplemental underinsured motorist benefits.

ORDERED that the order dated June 3, 2025, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In October 2021, Hector Rodriguez was involved in an automobile accident with a motor vehicle insured by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (hereinafter State Farm), with liability limits for bodily injury in the amounts of $250,000 per person/$500,000 per accident under a primary automobile insurance policy and an additional $1,000,000 per occurrence under a personal liability umbrella policy. It is not disputed that State Farm tendered its coverage limits, paying $1,000,000 to Rodriguez and the rest to another person injured in the accident.

At the time of the accident, Rodriguez was operating a motor vehicle insured by the petitioner, Erie Insurance Company (hereinafter Erie), with bodily injury liability limits of $1,000,000 and supplementary underinsured motorist coverage (hereinafter SUM) limits of $500,000. Rodriguez made a claim for SUM coverage under Erie’s policy. Erie denied coverage on the ground that the bodily injury limits provided in the State Farm policies were equal to or greater than those provided in the Erie policy. Rodriguez made a demand for arbitration of his claim. Erie then commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of Rodriguez’s claim for SUM benefits. In an order dated May 13, 2025, the Supreme Court granted the amended petition. Rodriguez moved for leave to reargue his opposition to the amended petition. In an order dated June 3, 2025, the court, upon reargument, adhered to its prior determination in the order dated May 13, 2025, granting the amended petition. Rodriguez appeals.

Insurance Law § 3420(f)(2), which requires an insurer to offer SUM coverage in an automobile insurance policy, “was enacted to allow policyholders to acquire the same level of protection for themselves and their passengers as they purchased to protect themselves against [*2]liability to others” (Matter of Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v Mancuso, 93 NY2d 487, 492). “SUM coverage is only triggered where the bodily injury liability insurance limits of the policy covering the tortfeasor’s vehicle are less than the third-party liability limits of the policy under which a party is seeking SUM benefits” (Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Rivera, 12 NY3d 602, 607-608). In ascertaining the limits of the policy covering the tortfeasor’s vehicle, the statute considers “the limits of liability under all bodily injury . . . insurance policies” (Insurance Law § 3420[f][2][A] [emphasis added]).

Here, the bodily injury liability insurance coverage limits provided under the State Farm policies were greater than that provided under the Erie policy. Thus, the Supreme Court properly determined that SUM coverage was not triggered (see Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Rivera, 12 NY3d at 607-608; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Diaz, 223 AD3d 674, 675).

In light of our determination, we do not reach Rodriguez’s remaining contention.

CONNOLLY, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, WARHIT and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court

Similar decisions

Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co. v Davalos (2007 NY Slip Op 03146)An insurer must show prejudice from late UM notice under a SUM endorsement when accident notice was timely and no-fault benefits were sought.
Matter of Unitrin Direct/Warner Ins. Co. v Brand (2014 NY Slip Op 05887)The claimant's SUM coverage was not triggered because New York law governed and the policies had equal bodily injury liability limits.
Matter of Progressive Direct Ins. Co. v Vargas (2026 NY Slip Op 06393)The claimant's evidence raised factual issues about physical contact and compliance with the policy's 24-hour reporting requirement.
Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. (Frenkel) (2009 NY Slip Op 00475)The insurer failed to show prejudice from late notice of the injured claimant's third-party action and SUM claim.
Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Bermeo (2024 NY Slip Op 04388)The insurer established that the claimant was struck by an e-bike rather than a motor vehicle covered by the uninsured motorist provision.