N.H. Court: Motorcyle Hit-Run Victim Covered by Auto Uninsured Coverage

August 30, 2007

  • August 30, 2007 at 2:08 am
    clm mgr says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Nice to hear that at least one time one court in this country seems to have gotten it right. Amica should not have contested this case so vigorously since their argument regarding whether the victim was “occupying” his motorcycle was so weak. I’ll wager that they’re working on the policy rewrite as this goes to press.

  • August 30, 2007 at 2:33 am
    exjarhead says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    since his injury occured after getting off the uninsured vehicle I think the courts got this wrong:

    included an owned vehicle exclusion precluding coverage for any injuries sustained “[b]y an insured while occupying, or when struck by, any motor vehicle owned by that insured which is not insured for this coverage under this [p]olicy.” Occupying is defined as “in, upon, getting in, on, out or off” of a vehicle.

  • August 30, 2007 at 2:45 am
    bob laublaw says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I concur with exjarhead on this one. Clm Mgr what are you thinking? There should be no coverage for a loss like this. This is an incorrect ruling and Amica is getting the shaft.

  • August 30, 2007 at 3:03 am
    clm mgr says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The operative phrasing is “getting in, on, out or off” of a vehicle. The definition implies the act of getting off a vehicle. This poor unfortunate soul was already off his motorcycle and was lying motionless when the adverse vehicle struck him. He was not getting off. He was off. I think the court got it right.

  • August 30, 2007 at 3:04 am
    claims says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    actually in the world of claims
    – this would have been 2 seperate claims –
    1st his motorcyle got caught in a rut in the roadway and he was thrown 40 feet from it — while lying in the road injuried but not dead a motorist comes along and hits him and then leaves the scene unidentified – which takes us to claim# 2 an unisured motorist bodily injury claim – although the 1st incident would not qaulify for a um claim his death in the 2nd one would.

  • August 30, 2007 at 3:05 am
    bob says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I agree with the position it shouldn’t be covered. common sense says: why was he lying in the road? ’cause of the motorcycle. that’s excluded, therefore coverage shouldn’t apply.
    always remember that a judge is just another bottom feeder, ‘cept he’s wearing funny clothes.

  • August 30, 2007 at 3:12 am
    Pedestrian? says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Doesn’t UM cover you while a pedestrian? Granted his “pedestrian” status was from being thrown from the bike, he was not getting off of, he was already off of. Too bad the H&R driver was not tracked down, probably didn’t have any coverage anyway.

  • August 30, 2007 at 3:26 am
    Ohioan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I have to agree with those who concur with the courts decision to extend coverage for this. It’s well reasoned and the carriers initial coverage decision was flawed. I’ve handled several claims with the same fact pattern and all were covered voluntarily.

  • August 31, 2007 at 8:01 am
    Ratemaker says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I agree with the court’s decision as well.

    While clearly the insurer’s policy was not intended to cover such a loss, such ambiguities are supposed to be settled in favor of the insured, due to the principle of adhesion.

    Given the “two events” concept mentioned in the post by “claims,” the court got it right.

    Goes to show how important getting the policy language exactly right is.

  • August 31, 2007 at 3:13 am
    claims says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    NEVER SAID THE COURTS GOT IT WRONG!
    IT SHOULD HAVE NEVER GONE TO THE COURTS FOR SETTLEMENT ANYWAY… SHOULD HAVE BEEN SETTLED BEFORE THEN BY THE INSURANCE COMPANY…..



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*