« Back to BG&S in the News

Jury Finds That “Accident” Was Intentional
By: W. Schirmer, Esq.

FOR THE DEFENSE

Jury Finds That “Accident” Was Intentional

By: Drew W. Schirmer, Esq.
Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP
Melville, New York


I recently tried a No-Fault case in Civil Court, Kings County, before a jury, on behalf of New York Central Mutual Fire Ins. Co. (NYCM)

This action arose as a result of the carrier’s denial to pay benefits to the plaintiff for CT-scans performed on the assignor, Iamze Beridze. This denial was based upon the conclusion that the assignor failed to cooperate and violated the fraud provision of the applicable policy. At trial, our defense to plaintiff\'s claim was predicated on the finding that the underlying motor vehicle “accident” was the result of an intentional act, and, therefore, there was no coverage for this loss.

When jury selection was completed, the case was assigned to Judge Lila Gold for trial. At trial, the defense stipulated to plaintiff\'s prima facie case and proceeded to call the adverse driver, as well as a Suffolk County Police Detective and an investigator from New York Central Mutual to testify. The adverse driver testified that he was traveling in the right lane of the eastbound side of the Belt Parkway proceeding at approximately 40 miles per hour when a vehicle came out of nowhere and pulled up next to him in the center lane. Shortly thereafter, another vehicle went around that first vehicle and cut in front of him in the right lane and jammed on their brakes causing a rear-end collision since he could not move out of his lane, as he was blocked by the second vehicle. He further testified that there was no doubt in his mind that this vehicle\'s driver intentionally caused the accident.

Immediately after the accident, the three individuals in the other vehicle spoke to him in English and indicated that they were alright. However, when police arrived, none of them was able to speak English and spoke only Russian and apparently complained about injuries, with at least two of the three passengers being removed from the scene by ambulance. Significantly, he stated that right after the accident, the vehicle traveling next to him in the center lane drove off.

The next witness to testify was Detective Collins who works for the Suffolk County District Attorney\'s Office. Detective Collins testified that while investigating another accident, he arrested a known runner, who had an original premium notice concerning the policy issued to the NYCM insured in this case. He further testified that upon review of the documents, he called the carrier and inquired as to whether there was a record of a loss under this policy. When he was told there was not, he advised that there would be a loss. He also testified extensively about the manner in which accidents are staged and the function of runners to stage these accidents. Interestingly, plaintiff\'s counsel did not cross-examine this Detective.

The final witness to testify was the investigator from NYCM, who testified that this loss occurred six weeks after the inception of this policy and that NYCM received over $40,000.00 worth of medical billing as a result of this alleged loss, all of which was denied. During my summation, I pointed to the fact that plaintiff offered no evidence to rebut our claim that the accident was intentionally caused and that the testimony of our witnesses was compelling and believable. After deliberating for approximately 45 minutes, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the insurance company, finding that it had properly denied plaintiff\'s claim based upon the fact that the accident was intentionally caused.

Editors Note: Drew W. Schirmer is a graduate of Jacob D. Fuchsberg School of Law, Touro College and a partner at Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP, located in Melville, New York.

« Back to BG&S in the News