Colon v. Old Republic Insurance Company

Background

Jazlyn Colon was injured in a car accident while riding in an Uber ordered by a non-party. She alleged that she was wrongfully denied benefits under a supplemental insurance policy issued by Old Republic Insurance Company to Raiser-NY, LLC, Uber Technologies, Inc., and Uber USA, LLC. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence shows that there is no genuine dispute requiring a trial.

The defendants styled their motion as seeking both judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment. Because the motion was filed after discovery closed, the court had set a schedule for summary-judgment briefing, and the parties relied on materials outside the pleadings, the court treated the motion only as one for summary judgment.

Implied-Covenant Claim

The court granted summary judgment with respect to Colon’s second claim, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Colon’s claim relied on the Uber User Agreement. The court concluded that the agreement made no representation about the insurance coverage Uber maintained. It also broadly disclaimed representations and warranties and stated that the user accepted the risk arising from use of the services.

Because implying an obligation against lowering insurance coverage would be inconsistent with the agreement’s terms, the court held that such an obligation could not properly be added. The court therefore granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on this claim.

Breach-of-Contract Claim

The court reserved judgment on Colon’s first claim, for breach of the Supplemental Policy. The defendants argued that coverage was unavailable because Colon’s Uber driver had a primary uninsured- or underinsured-motorist policy, referred to as the TLC Policy, with limits exceeding those in the Supplemental Policy. The Supplemental Policy provided that it would not apply if other available coverage provided at least the same limits.

The court stated that this argument could preclude coverage if the defendants established that the driver was covered by the TLC Policy when the accident occurred. But the record did not contain evidence confirming that coverage or showing the TLC Policy’s terms. Assertions in the defendants’ legal memorandum were insufficient. The court ordered the defendants, by May 2, 2023, either to identify admissible evidence already in the record or to supplement the record with supporting evidence. Colon could respond by May 9, 2023.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to Colon’s claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and reserved judgment as to her breach-of-contract claim. The opinion did not state a final ruling on the breach-of-contract claim.