Walton v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 88 N.Y.2d 572 (1979)
For the purposes of New York’s no-fault insurance law, the term “occupant” should be given its ordinary, dictionary meaning, and does not include a person who has exited their vehicle and is standing on the highway diverting traffic.
Summary
Walton was injured when hit by a car driven by Conwell, who was insured by Lumbermens Mutual. Walton had been standing on the Grand Central Parkway, diverting traffic away from his disabled vehicle. Lumbermens Mutual denied Walton’s claim for no-fault benefits, arguing he was an “occupant” of his own vehicle. The New York Court of Appeals held that, under the no-fault insurance law, Walton was not an “occupant” of his vehicle when he was struck, and was thus entitled to benefits under Conwell’s policy. The Court reasoned that the legislature intended a narrower definition of “occupant” for no-fault than the expanded definition used in the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (MVAIC) context.
Facts
On November 12, 1976, Walton was driving on the Grand Central Parkway when his car’s hood flew up, obstructing his view. He pulled over, partially onto the center median. Walton and his passengers stood in the roadway, flagging down oncoming traffic to warn them of the disabled vehicle.
After approximately 15 minutes, a passing motorist offered to call for a tow truck. Walton and his passengers continued flagging traffic. While Walton was walking in the road, six or seven feet from his car, he was struck by a vehicle driven by Conwell.
Procedural History
Walton filed a claim for no-fault benefits with Lumbermens Mutual, Conwell’s insurer, which was denied. Lumbermens Mutual argued that Walton was a passenger of his disabled vehicle and should be covered under his own no-fault insurance. Walton then filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a determination that he was entitled to benefits under Conwell’s policy. The trial court ruled in favor of Lumbermens Mutual. The Appellate Division reversed, finding for Walton. Lumbermens Mutual appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether Walton was a