SSM ELRAC, INC., D/B/A ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR v AMNODIA MASARA et al


\|

Keywords & Phrases

CourtCode: AP, CourtName: NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, Plaintiff: SSM ELRAC, INC., D/B/A ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR, State: NEW YORK, UniqueCaseRef: NE>AP>I01_0076, Elrac, Property Damage, Vehicle, Indemnification, Coverage, Masara, Car, Rental Agreement, Insurance, Amount, Traffic Law, Appellants, Rental Companies, Statutory, Legislature, Memorandum, Ward, Permissive Users, Renters, Enforce, Amnodia Masara, Appellate Division, Costs, Clause, Decline, Rafael Masara, Inure, Liability, Injury , ContentID: 120248704

Case Documents

2001-06-14

OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below ] ItemID: 120614

2 pages
HTML

Total Documents: 1 document , 2 pages

Price: $ 19.95

IVESLCD01 KGI0001

1 . OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS

PROPERTY DAMAGE
VEHICLE
INDEMNIFICATION
COVERAGE
MASARA
CAR
RENTAL AGREEMENT
INSURANCE
AMOUNT
DEFENDANTS
TRAFFIC LAW
APPELLANTS
RENTAL COMPANIES
STATUTORY
LEGISLATURE
MEMORANDUM
WARD
PERMISSIVE USERS
RENTERS
ENFORCE
AMNODIA MASARA
APPELLATE DIVISION
COSTS
CLAUSE
DECLINE
RAFAEL MASARA
INURE
LIABILITY
INJURY



   2 No. 115 SSM 8
   ELRAC, Inc., d/b/a Enterprise Rent-A-Car,
   Respondent,
   v.
   Amnodia Masara et al.,
   Appellants.
     _________________________________________________________________

   2001 NY Int. 76

   June 14, 2001

   This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
   publication in the New York Reports.

   Submitted by Stuart M. Herz, for appellants.
   Submitted by Christopher A. Jeffreys, for respondent.
     _________________________________________________________________
     _________________________________________________________________

   MEMORANDUM:

   The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

   Defendant Amnodia Masara rented a car from ELRAC and signed a standard
   clause in the company's rental agreement promising to indemnify ELRAC
   for any damage caused by her use of the vehicle. When she rented the
   car, Masara declined to purchase insurance from ELRAC that was offered
   for an added fee. In addition, the rental agreement did not permit
   Masara to allow anyone else to drive the car.

   While being driven by Masara's father, Rafael Masara, the car was
   involved in an accident, causing property damage to three other
   vehicles. ELRAC settled the property damage claims, and brought this
   action seeking indemnification against the Masaras under the rental
   agreement. Supreme Court granted summary judgment to ELRAC and awarded
   indemnification, and the Appellate Division affirmed.

   As we recently held in ELRAC v Ward, ___ NY2d ___ (April 3, 2001),
   section 370 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law requires rental car
   companies to obtain a minimum amount of insurance for their vehicles.
   That minimum insurance must "inure to the benefit" of any permissive
   users of the vehicles, including renters (Vehicle and Traffic Law
   370(1)(b)). Moreover, self-insured rental companies like ELRAC are
   required to provide the same minimum coverage to their renters. We
   held in ELRAC v Ward that a rental company may not enforce an

SNIPPETS:

This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York

for appellants.

Defendant Amnodia Masara rented a car from ELRAC and signed a standard clause in the

While being driven by Masara's father, Rafael Masara, the car was involved in an accident,

ELRAC settled the property damage claims, and brought this action seeking indemnification

Supreme Court granted summary judgment to ELRAC and awarded indemnification, and the

As we recently held in ELRAC v Ward, ___ NY2d ___, section 370 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law

That minimum insurance must "inure to the benefit" of any permissive users of the vehicles,

self-insured rental companies like ELRAC are required to provide the same minimum coverage to

We held in ELRAC v Ward that a rental company may not enforce an indemnification agreement

We reject defendants' argument that Vehicle and Traffic Law § 370 prohibits ELRAC from

We decline to adopt defendants' argument that the word "maximum" in section 370 actually

The Legislature explicitly specified "minimum" coverage amounts for other types of injury,

Statutory language should generally be read in its "natural and obvious sense".

While defendants' reading, that the Legislature meant the term "maximum liability" to

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules, order affirmed, with costs,


\|