This page summarizes and comments on a published court decision. It is general information, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case depends on its own facts. Unless this page says otherwise, The Eskesen Law Firm did not represent any party in this case.
Bottom line
Supplementary underinsured motorist (SUM) coverage on your own auto policy applies only when the bodily injury liability coverage on the vehicle that caused the crash is less than the liability limits of your own policy, and the law counts all of that vehicle’s bodily injury policies. Here, the Second Department affirmed an order permanently stopping a driver’s SUM arbitration, because the other vehicle’s primary and umbrella policies together had higher limits than the $1,000,000 liability limit on his own policy.
The case
- Court
- Appellate Division, Second Department
- Decided
- October 21, 2026
- Case
- Matter of Erie Ins. Co. v Rodriguez
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 06115
- Official text
- Read the decision on the New York courts’ official reporter site
The facts
In October 2021, Hector Rodriguez was involved in an automobile accident with a vehicle insured by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. That vehicle had bodily injury liability limits of $250,000 per person and $500,000 per accident under a primary policy, plus $1,000,000 per occurrence under a personal liability umbrella policy. It was not disputed that State Farm paid its limits, $1,000,000 to Rodriguez and the rest to another person injured in the accident. Rodriguez was driving a vehicle insured by Erie Insurance Company, with bodily injury liability limits of $1,000,000 and SUM limits of $500,000. Erie denied his SUM claim because the State Farm limits were equal to or greater than its own, and when he demanded arbitration, it asked the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, to stay the arbitration permanently. The court granted the petition and, on reargument, adhered to that ruling. Rodriguez appealed.
The holding
The Second Department affirmed. It noted that the law requiring insurers to offer SUM coverage “was enacted to allow policyholders to acquire the same level of protection for themselves and their passengers as they purchased to protect themselves against liability to others” (2026 NY Slip Op 06115, *1 to *2, quoting Matter of Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v Mancuso). But “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” (id. at *2, quoting Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Rivera), and the statute counts “the limits of liability under all bodily injury . . . insurance policies” (id., quoting Insurance Law § 3420[f][2][A] [emphasis omitted]). Because “the bodily injury liability insurance coverage limits provided under the State Farm policies were greater than that provided under the Erie policy,” SUM coverage “was not triggered” (id.).
What changed
Nothing new: this applies settled law, including the Court of Appeals’ decisions in Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Rivera (12 NY3d 602) and Matter of Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v Mancuso (93 NY2d 487), and the court’s earlier decision in Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Diaz (223 AD3d 674).
What it means
- SUM coverage is part of your own auto policy. As the court described its purpose, it lets you buy the same level of protection for yourself and your passengers that you bought to protect others.
- It is not automatically extra money on top of what the other driver’s insurer pays. The first question is a comparison: is the other vehicle’s bodily injury coverage less than the liability limits on your own policy?
- All of the other vehicle’s bodily injury coverage counts. Here, that included an umbrella policy.
- Because the other vehicle’s coverage was greater than his own policy’s liability limit, his $500,000 of SUM coverage did not apply.
- The decision does not say who was at fault or describe the injuries.
Our view
Commentary by Frank N. Eskesen. This section is opinion.
In our view, this decision is a useful reminder of how SUM coverage works. In our experience, many drivers think of it as an extra layer that pays whenever the other driver’s insurance runs out. As the court applied the rule, it works more like a measuring stick: your own liability limit sets the mark, and SUM coverage comes into play only if the other vehicle’s coverage falls short of it. Here, it did not. This was also an unusual case, because everyone involved had a lot of insurance. Too often, a seriously injured person is hit by a car carrying only the minimum policy and either has no auto insurance of their own or did not buy enough SUM coverage to make up the difference. Two lessons. 1. Review your auto policy with your insurance agent or broker, including your liability limits and your SUM limits; policies differ, so check yours (see our post on why New York drivers should consider more than minimum auto insurance). 2. After a serious crash, identify every policy that may apply on both sides, including umbrella policies, and get legal advice promptly. With SUM coverage, what you bought matters, and so does how it compares.
Topics
Court: Second Department. Year: 2026. Statutes: Insurance Law § 3420(f)(2). Result: affirmed.
Reviewed by Frank N. Eskesen, admitted in New York since 2000. Decided October 21, 2026. Posted October 21, 2026.
Questions about your own accident?
Call us for a free consultation. Calls answered live 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.