In our previous column,1 we discussed the disparate ways in which the New York courts have determined the question of whether individuals are entitled to make claims under policies issued in the name of a corporation, on the one hand, and partnerships, and/or limited liability companies, on the other hand. As we noted, while the courts have consistently precluded individuals from making such claims under corporate policies, they have utilized a more expansive approach in the context of partnership and “LLC” policies, based on the fact that the latter entities, unlike corporations, consist of combinations of individuals, who can suffer injuries and have spouses, households and relatives. Compare Buckner v. MVAIC, 66 NY2d 211 (1985) with Aetna Casualty & Surety v. Mantovani, 240 AD2d 566 (2d Dept. 1997) and Morette v. Kemper, Unitrin Auto & Home Ins., 35 Misc.3d 200 (Sup. Ct., Essex, 2012). Left for further discussion was the place in this realm of individuals (and their resident relatives) under policies issued in the name of a trade name or “d/b/a.”
‘O’Hanlon’
In Buckner, supra, in which the Court of Appeals held that a policy issued to a family-owned real estate corporation did not provide uninsured motorist coverage to the college-aged son of the officers and sole shareholders of the corporation, who resided with them, the court cited O’Hanlon v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity, 639 F.2d 1019 (3d Cir. 1981), as an example of a case where (as distinguished from the result in Buckner) coverage was applicable under the supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorist (SUM) endorsement to a commercial auto policy issued in the name of a trade name, pursuant to which the claimant’s father conducted business, for injuries sustained by the claimant while occupying a vehicle that was not owned by the father or the business and not insured under the subject policy.
