Sixth Circuit Highlights the Importance of Policy Definitions

By Burke Coleman | October 2, 2013

  • October 7, 2013 at 12:00 pm
    Huh! says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I don’t disagree that the claimant was “on” the vehicle; however, that was after she was injured, not before. When the courts disallow the use of common sense, they open the door to an ever inreasing number of frivolous lawsuits.

  • October 7, 2013 at 3:43 pm
    The Bigger Lebowski says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Proof that common sense isn’t so common. Especially amongst the judiciary (and the elitists who teach contract law) whilst not having to live with the fallout of their idiotic decisions. And her injuries weren’t the result of her occupancy of the vehicle – it was the fact that she DIDN’T occupy it. Had she been occupying the vehicle she would not have had the opportunity to bounce off of it. I rarely agree with State Farm, but that WAS a ridiculous (albeit successful) argument.

  • October 28, 2013 at 4:56 pm
    Thomas says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The above comments contain the same error (understandable unless you’ve read the actual case): The court did NOT say the pedestrian was an “occupant” with coverage when she was hit by the car. The parties stipulated that after she was hit, she was thrown onto the car, “where she ‘sustained ***further*** bodily injuries.'” “Per the policy’s terms, therefore, Bennett was an ‘occupant’ of the vehicle and thus entitled to coverage ***for those additional injuries****.”

    The insurance policy defined “occupant” to include someone “on” a car. The court acknowledged that this is an odd definition of “occupant,” but it’s crystal clear.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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

*