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.
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.
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.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
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.
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.
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.