The petitioner, an insurance company, moves to stay arbitration demanded by respondent pursuant to the uninsured motorist endorsement contained in the insurance policy involved herein.
The claimant was injured as a result of a collision between a bus, in which she was a passenger, and an admittedly uninsured automobile.
The policy under which arbitration is demanded covers the bus driver’s personal automobile an'd his carrier argues that a holding to the effect that perhaps anywhere from 50 to 100 passengers in a transit bus could demand arbitration and be dovered under this policy would be a strained and unreasonable construction of the sen'se of the legislative intent in enacting subdivision 2-a of section 167 of the Insurance Law.
This is an unusual situation and highlights a possible loophole in the protection the State intended to offer and perhaps the Legislature should act to remedy the statutory flaiw. The transit bus is- a self-insurer and it has been established that the bond posted to comply with the legal requirements is not *713an insurance policy and the “ uninsured motorist endorsement ” is not a part therein (Matter of MV AIc [Haynes], 233 N. Y. S. 2d 327). Therefore claimant cannot proceed by arbitration under the so-called insurance coverage of the bus. The Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation has previously rejected a claim by respondent since it felt that the driver’s individual automobile liability policy covered.
This court cannot accept this theory and we agree with petitioner that extending coverage under a minimum automobile liability policy to this situation would be a result clearly not intended by the Legislature which had in mind “ automobiles ” and like vehicles, not some massive omnibus.
Application to stay arbitration is granted.