Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Flora CORE, Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.
In an action to recover uninsured motorist benefits pursuant to a contract of insurance issued in Pennsylvania, plaintiff moved to dismiss the second, third and fourth affirmative defenses, “which, in effect, all alleged that [this] action is barred on the ground that ․ plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d)” (Scotland v Allstate Ins. Co., 35 AD3d 584, 584 [2006]). By order entered January 5, 2019, the Civil Court denied the motion on the ground that plaintiff did not “provide complete motion papers to the court.”
The record provided to this court on appeal includes an original set of motion papers that are date-stamped as having been filed with the Civil Court on September 26, 2018. The motion appears to be “complete” and the Civil Court did not identify what was missing. In the interest of judicial economy, we review plaintiff's motion on the merits.
Plaintiff sued defendant under the uninsured motorist provision of the subject Pennsylvania policy, and plaintiff correctly argues that New York's serious injury threshold of Insurance Law § 3420 (f) (1) does not apply (see Scotland, 35 AD3d 584). However, Pennsylvania law has its own serious injury requirement that applies in certain circumstances, and plaintiff has not demonstrated, as a matter of law, that such circumstances are not present in this case (see 75 Pa Stat Ann §§ 1731, 1705 [d]). As pleadings should be liberally construed (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83 [1994]), the subject affirmative defenses should be broadly construed to allege “that this action is barred because ․ plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury” (Scotland, 35 AD3d at 584). Thus, plaintiff's motion to dismiss the second, third and fourth affirmative defenses was properly denied, albeit on a ground other than that relied upon by the Civil Court.
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
WESTON, J.P., ELLIOT and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 2019-618 K C
Decided: December 11, 2020
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York,
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)