The Keys, the Two-Block Errand, and the Number That Does Not Add Up
Marco owns a 2019 sedan insured in New York at 25/50/10 with SUM of $100,000 per person. His 22-year-old son Dario lives at home and is a listed driver. Marco told Dario in front of the family, "nobody drives this car but you and me." On a Saturday Dario handed the keys to his friend Kayla so she could drive two blocks to the pharmacy. Kayla instead drove eight miles to a party and, on the way back, ran a red light and struck Alan, a cyclist. Alan's medical bills are $140,000 and his lost wages $30,000. Kayla carries her own New York 25/50/10 policy. Alan's own auto policy carries SUM limits of $100,000. Marco calls you and asks flatly whether his policy "covers Kayla or not, because I told Dario nobody else drives it."
1. Is Kayla an insured under Marco's policy? Explain your reasoning and state what you would do with the file today.
Read the worked answer
New York follows a broad initial permission rule: once the named insured grants a household member general permission to use the vehicle, that permission carries over to others the permitted user allows to drive, and coverage follows the vehicle. Marco's verbal restriction matters, but it does not automatically defeat coverage where Dario had unrestricted access to the car in practice - check whether Dario had his own key, whether the car was kept at the house, and whether Kayla had driven it before.
The eight-mile detour is a deviation, but a deviation from the stated errand does not by itself terminate permission under New York's rule; only a substantial deviation amounting to theft would.
Actions today: do not deny. Tender a defense to Marco and to Kayla under a reservation of rights citing the permission issue, assign counsel, set a $25,000 per-person indemnity reserve plus defense costs, and obtain recorded statements from Marco, Dario and Kayla and confirm who held the only set of keys. If the facts later show Kayla took the car without any permission at all, a disclaimer must issue as soon as is reasonably possible or the defense is waived.
2. Assuming coverage applies, calculate what Alan collects in total across the three policies and state the assumptions behind your number.
Read the worked answer
Liability layer. Marco's policy pays its $25,000 per-person limit; Kayla's own policy applies to her operation of a non-owned auto and also pays $25,000. Combined tortfeasor recovery: $50,000 (each policy capped by its per-person limit; neither has a per-accident problem with only one injured claimant).
SUM layer. Alan's damages are $170,000, which exceeds his $100,000 SUM limit. Under the standard New York SUM endorsement, the insurer pays the difference between the SUM limit and the amounts recovered from the at-fault drivers: $100,000 − $50,000 = $50,000, not a full $100,000.
Total: $150,000, leaving $20,000 uncompensated.
Assumptions to verify: (1) Alan's SUM was in force on the date of loss and not stacked or reduced by other coverage; (2) the tortfeasor vehicles qualify as underinsured - SUM pays only after the underlying limits are exhausted, and Alan must provide written proof of those recoveries; (3) no setoff for no-fault benefits applies, since a cyclist is not a covered person under the no-fault endorsement; (4) both liability policies actually pay their limits - if either tenders less, the SUM offset shrinks and Alan's SUM recovery rises.
3. A second claimant from the same crash comes forward with $90,000 in medicals, and Alan's attorney demands the entire $50,000 per-accident limit for Alan alone. How do you handle it?
Read the worked answer
The $50,000 per-accident limit is a single fund. Paying Alan the full amount would expose the insurer to a bad-faith claim from the second claimant for dissipating the limit.
Steps:
- Notify both claimants' counsel in writing of the $50,000 per-accident limit and that competing claims exist.
- Obtain full medical documentation and wage loss from both before allocating.
- Propose a pro rata allocation by provable damages (roughly 170:90, or about 65%/35%), conditioned on full releases and indemnity agreements covering liens.
- If either refuses, consider an interpleader so a court allocates the fund - but note the cost, and that interpleader can itself be a basis for a bad-faith complaint if a reasonable settlement was on the table.
- Document the evaluation of each claimant's damages, since the file is the defense to any excess claim.
Do not let Alan's demand deadline drive a payment that creates exposure on the other side.