Maine Court: Deputy Injured by Own Police Car Covered by Personal Policy

September 25, 2007

  • September 25, 2007 at 11:40 am
    another guy named Rick says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Are there ‘special’ rules that would allow public entities in Maine NOT to provide workers compensation?

  • September 25, 2007 at 1:42 am
    Ohioan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I agree with Rick. He was hurt on the job-why isn’t this work comp?

  • September 25, 2007 at 2:07 am
    Dave says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I think this ranks as one of the bumbest rulings I have ever read. As a retired police officer, I know that the county should and will take care of all injuries will on duty. While never injuried as bad as this deputy, I did have some injuries that were always paid by the county.

  • September 25, 2007 at 2:16 am
    Scott Labott says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Why doesn’t the fire fighters rule apply in this situation? He was on the job at the time correct?

  • September 25, 2007 at 2:31 am
    Mary B. says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    He is entitled to WC benefits but that does not preclude him form pusuing a 3rd party BI claim against the “at fault” party. Being that it was his vehicle and was a stolen vehicle, it should be consider uninsured and he should be able to pursue a UMBI claim under his auto policy. This completely makes sense.

  • September 25, 2007 at 2:34 am
    Adjuster in New England says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I am sure the cop got Worker’s Comp. The article said the County policy did not provide uninsured cover but said nothing about WC. I assume he got WC and now is looking for something for his pain and suffering.

  • September 25, 2007 at 2:51 am
    Bill Reed says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    We should all be shocked at the flawed, and irrational decision of this court in jerkwater, USA. It’s clear the court wants to protect the police department and city and transfer the costs to the private sector. This decision is not only inequitable, it should be contrary to public policy. The personal auto policy contemplated this exposure and has specific exclusions for it.

  • September 25, 2007 at 3:29 am
    Bill Cundiff says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I agree with the adjuster from New England.
    I have a question for Mr. Reed. What would cause you to disparage the state of Maine with your “jerkwater USA” comment? Totally unnecessary and very unprofessional.

  • September 25, 2007 at 4:12 am
    Bill Reed says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Bill C. Simply one’s man’s opinion having lived there for many years, and comparing it to other areas of the country. It has nothing to do with insurance professionalism.

  • September 25, 2007 at 4:54 am
    Mary B. says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Bill, what exclusion are your refering to? As most personal auto policies either offer UIM/UM or don’t. It’s clear the police vehicle had no UIM/UM coverage so his own auto policy would be secondary in coverage for this loss if he was hit by an uninsured motorist. The police vehicle was “considered” uninsured since it was a stolen vehicle.



Add a Comment

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

*