1 Personal Injury Protection Benefits Under the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Responsibility Law FOR CNA INSURANCE COMPANIES READING, PA AUGUST 12, 2009 PRESENTED BY WAYMAN, IRVIN & MCAULEY, LLC (412) DALE K. FORSYTHE, ESQ. GREGORY S. KNIGHT, ESQ.
2 What is the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Responsibility Law? 2 The Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Responsibility Law (MVFRL) requires all owners of vehicles registered in Pennsylvania to maintain financial responsibility for their vehicles, i.e., maintain insurance on them. Under the MVFRL first party benefits (PIP) are required in each insurance policy issued in Pennsylvania.
3 What is the Purpose of the MVFRL? The MVFRL is a means of insurance reform, enacted by the legislature to reduce the escalating costs of purchasing motor vehicle insurance in our Commonwealth. The underlying objective of the MVFRL is to provide broad coverage to assure the financial integrity of the policyholder. According to case law, courts should liberally construe the MVFRL to afford the greatest possible coverage to injured claimants. In close or doubtful insurance cases, a court should resolve the meaning of insurance policy provisions or the legislative intent in favor of coverage for the insured. 720 A.2d 1051, 382 Pa. Super. 29 3
4 What are Personal Injury Protection Benefits? 4 Personal Injury Protection Benefits, better known as first party benefits, are a type of insurance coverage. As defined under the MVFRL (75 Pa.C.S.A 1702), first party benefits include: medical benefits, income loss benefits, accidental death benefits and funeral benefits. First party benefits provide the first line of coverage in the case of injuries resulting from the use or operation of a motor vehicle. First party benefits are paid to the insured by his or her own insurance carrier, as opposed to third party benefits, liability benefits, and property damage benefits.
5 What Benefits Are Required? Under PA 75 Pa.C.S.A. 1711, the minimum coverage necessary is a $5,000 medical benefit. 5 Failure to maintain the minimum prohibits an insured from recovering income loss and medical benefits from a third party tortfeasor.
6 What Benefits Are Available? An insurance company must make available for purchase: Medical benefits, up to at least $100,000 6 Extraordinary medical benefits, from $100,000 to $1,100,000, which may be offered in increments of $100,000 Income loss benefits, up to at least $2,500 per month up to a maximum benefit of at least $50,000 Accidental death benefits, up to at least $25,000 Funeral benefits, up to at least $2,500
7 WHAT QUALIFIES FOR COVERAGE UNDER FIRST PARTY BENEFITS? 7 Medical Benefits
8 Example of a Covered Expense 8 In Tagliati v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 720 A.2d 1051 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998), Tagliati, along with other insured persons, sought reimbursement for the cost of thermographic studies 1 for the purpose of diagnosis and treatment, after they were injured in motor vehicle collisions. Each of the insured persons held a policy with Nationwide entitling them to first party medical benefits. Nationwide refused to reimburse the insured persons, arguing that thermography is not a reasonable and necessary medical treatment under the terms of the MVFRL, and therefore is not compensable. The insured persons brought separate suits against Nationwide seeking payment for their thermography expenses and attorney fees. The Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County denied all of the insured persons claims, stating as a matter of law that thermography is not a reasonable and necessary medical treatment. The insured persons brought a consolidated appeal. Continued 1 Thermography is a diagnostic procedure that measures infrared energy emitted by the skin.
9 Example of a Covered Expense Tagliati continued 9 The Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed the trial court ruling, holding that courts must decide whether something is a reasonable and necessary treatment, under the reasonable person standard on a case-by-case basis. The Court found that thermography was a reasonable and necessary treatment in the cases on appeal, and therefore the insurance company should reimburse the insured persons for their treatment costs. The Court held, however, that Nationwide did not have to reimburse the insured persons for attorney fees. The Court reasoned that because there is conflicting authority on the validity of thermography in the medical community, Nationwide had a reasonable basis for denying the claims. The Court further stated that while courts should not exclude thermography as a reasonable and necessary treatment as a matter of law, it is not compensable in all cases. To claim thermography as reasonable and necessary, the insured must prove that the circumstances warranted it, and the claimant must prove the value of the treatment by credible and reliable evidence.
10 Example of an Expense that is Not Covered 10 In Stiffler v. Ins. Comm'r of Pa., 786 A.2d 296 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2001), Stiffler sought reimbursement for the cost of a special cart that allowed him to travel and hunt in the woods. A motor vehicle collision in 1988 paralyzed Stiffler from the chest down, qualifying him for Catastrophic Loss Trust Fund benefits. Although paralyzed, Stiffler maintained his driver s license and operated vehicles with hand controls. The Catastrophic Loss Benefits Continuation Fund denied Stiffler s reimbursement, after a doctor who examined Stiffler found the cart solely aided Stiffler in his hobby, hunting, and had no medical benefit. Therefore, the reviewing board ruled that the cart was not medically necessary, and denied Stiffler s request for reimbursement. Stiffler filed an appeal with the Insurance Commissioner. Continued
11 Example of an Expense that is Not Covered Stiffler continued 11 The Commissioner upheld the review board s denial. Stiffler then filed an appeal with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, arguing that the Commissioner erred on ruling as a matter of law that the cart was not a necessary and reasonable medical treatment. On review, the Court found that Stiffler presented no evidence that the cart provided treatment, accommodations, products or services which are determined to be necessary by a licensed health care provider as required by the MVFRL, and therefore, upheld the Insurance Commissioner s ruling.
12 Example of an Expense that is Not Covered 12 Bickerton v. Ins. Comm'r, 808 A.2d 971 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002), also involved the denial of catastrophic loss benefits. Mr. Bickerton qualified for benefits from the Catastrophic Loss Benefits Continuation Fund following a motor vehicle collision that left him without a sense of safety and judgment and requiring 24-hour unskilled home health care. He needed supervision for most daily activities, as well as specialized medical care. Mrs. Bickerton claimed to be the primary caretaker for Mr. Bickerton and sought payment for taking care of him, but repeatedly failed to itemize her care-taking activities. Continued
13 Example of an Expense that is Not Covered Bickerton continued 13 The review board denied her claim for payment for home health care services. Mrs. Bickerton appealed to the Insurance Commissioner, who affirmed the denial of payment. Mrs. Bickerton then appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, arguing that she was entitled to receive payment based on forms that stated her health care activity as monitoring. The Court disagreed with Mrs. Bickerton s reasoning, finding that monitoring was not a treatment or rehabilitative service because it did not assist or increase Mr. Bickerton s ability to care for his self, and upheld the Commissioner s ruling.
14 Medical Benefits and Mental Illness 14 Recovery of Benefits Not Allowed: In Zerr v. Erie Ins. Exch., 446 Pa. Super. 451 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995), Mr. Zerr and his wife sued Erie Insurance Exchange, after Erie denied Mr. Zerr first party medical benefits under his insurance policy. Mr. Zerr suffered from several mental illnesses as a result of a near collision with a tractor-trailer on the turnpike. Erie filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, arguing that because Mr. Zerr suffered no physical injuries, he had no cause of action. Mr. Zerr then filed a brief in opposition to Erie s preliminary objections, arguing that because his mental illnesses had physical manifestations, he should receive first party medical benefits. The trial court, after oral arguments, dismissed the complaint. Continued
15 Medical Benefits and Mental Illness Zerr continued 15 The Zerr s appealed, arguing that the insurance policy should grant first party medical benefits to insured persons suffering from physical manifestations of mental illnesses caused by a motor vehicle incident. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania found that the language of the applicable insurance policy and of the MVFRL stated that first party medical benefits are available to those suffering from illness, disease or death as the result of a bodily injury. The Court found this contrary to Mr. Zerr s condition, because he suffered from bodily injury as a result of mental illness. The Court held that the law states with certainty that no recovery is possible, by means of the MVFRL for mental injury that is not the result of bodily injury. Therefore, the Court affirmed the trial court s granting of Erie s preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer.
16 Medical Benefits and Mental Illness 16 Recovery of Benefits Allowed: In Glikman v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 2007 PA Super 41 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007), the Superior Court of Pennsylvania revisited the issue of whether a person may recover first party medical benefits for mental illnesses resulting from a motor vehicle collision. Glikman sued Progressive Casualty Insurance after they failed to pay her first party medical benefits for treatment of post-traumatic stress syndrome she suffered from, after witnessing her husband being struck and killed by a vehicle whose driver Progressive insured. Both Glikman and Progressive moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted Progressive s motion for summary judgment, denying Glikman s motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania found that the language of the applicable insurance policy specifically covered any disease caused by an accident arising out of the used of a motor vehicle as a bodily injury. Continued
17 Medical Benefits and Mental Illness Glikman continued 17 The Court found that because post-traumatic stress syndrome is a disease, Glikman suffered from a bodily injury under the meaning of the policy. The Court found that because the language of the insurance policy at issue in the present case and in the Zerr case differed, the Zerr holding did not apply. The Court held that because the insurance policy entitled Glikman to recover it was unnecessary to determine whether the MVFRL also allowed her to recover. The Court vacated the trial courts order granting Progressive s motion for summary judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for reconsideration of Glikman s motion for summary judgment.
18 WHAT QUALIFIES FOR COVERAGE UNDER FIRST PARTY BENEFITS? 18 Income Loss Benefits
19 What is Covered? Insurers are required to offer income loss benefits. 75 Pa.S.C.A defines what benefits must be provided. Income loss benefits include eighty percent of actual loss of gross income. 19 Income loss does not include loss of expected income for any period following a person s death or expenses incurred for services performed following a person s death. If an insured uses sick days, those days can be considered an actual loss of gross income. A salaried employee who misses more than five days at work, but whose employer has no sick plan and whose salary is unaffected may not have a claim for income loss benefits.
20 When are Benefits Available? An insured cannot claim income loss under their insurance policy until five working days have been lost after the date of the accident. 20
21 What must the Insured Prove? 21 The But For test: In Persik v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 382 Pa. Super. 29 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1989), Persik filed a claim with Nationwide for income loss benefits, after a motor vehicle collision left her incapable of maintaining gainful employment. Persik was unemployed, but seeking employment, at the time of the collision. Nationwide denied the claim. Persik sued Nationwide for the income loss benefits. Nationwide motioned for summary judgment, arguing that because Persik was not working at the time of accident or for 12 months before the accident, she was not entitled to income loss benefits. Continued
22 What must the Insured Prove? Persik continued 22 The trial court granted Nationwide s motion for summary judgment. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that the right to recover income loss benefits does not depend on whether the claimant worked on the date of the accident. Rather, to receive income loss benefits the claimant must prove that income would have been earned but for the injury caused by the accident. Therefore, the Superior Court held that the trial court erred in summarily dismissing Persik s claim, reversed the trial court s holding and remanded for further proceedings.
23 Income Loss Benefits for the Self-Employed 23 As defined under 75 Pa.S.C.A an insured person who is self employed may recover: Reasonable expenses actually incurred for hiring a substitute to perform self-employment services thereby mitigating loss of gross income Reasonable expenses for hiring special help to enable them to work and mitigate loss of gross income.
24 Income Loss Benefits and Workmen s Compensation 24 If an insured is injured in the course of employment then workmen s compensation becomes their primary source of medical and income loss benefits, over the first party benefits under their insurance policy. An insured may combine workmen s compensation benefits and first party benefits under their insurance policy to obtain the maximum allowable amount recoverable of lost wages and medical expenses. This is also known as a wrap around claim.
25 Income Loss Benefits and Workmen s Compensation 25 In Kilgallen v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 1990 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2895 (Pa. Super. Ct. Apr. 11, 1990), Kilgallen made a claim with Liberty for income loss and medical benefits after the workmen s compensation benefits he received after sustaining injuries in a motor vehicle accident in the course of employment were terminated. Liberty denied benefits, claiming that the workmen s compensation benefits were Kilgallen s sole remedy. Kilgallen sued Liberty to obtain the benefits. Liberty filed an answer and new matter, which Kilgallen answered. Liberty then motioned for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, and Kilgallen appealed. Continued
26 Income Loss Benefits and Workmen s Compensation Kilgallen continued 26 On appeal, the main issue was whether the Workmen s Compensation Act takes precedence over the MVFRL so as to preclude the injured employee from recovering first party benefits under the employer s insurance policy. The Superior Court ruled that although workmen s compensation is the primary source of benefits, the MVFRL operates to provide first party benefits to those unable to collect workmen s compensation benefits. The Court held that section 1713 of the MVFRL can operate to require the employer s insurance carried to provide first party benefits when workmen s compensation benefits are unavailable. The Court reversed the order of summary judgment and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.
27 Income Loss Benefits and Workmen's Compensation 27 In Danko v. Erie Ins. Exch., 428 Pa. Super. 223 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993), Danko filed a claim to recover income loss benefits from her insurer, Erie, after she sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident while performing her job with a bus company. Erie denied that any benefits were due, because Danko received workmen s compensation benefits from the bus company. Danko sued Erie on four counts, including breach of contract. The trial court granted summary judgment to Erie on the charge of breach of contract, which Danko appealed. On appeal, the Superior Court looked to the MVFRL, which states that income loss benefits must be provided to the insured in the amount of eighty percent of actual loss of gross income. Because Danko s workmen s compensation benefits did not provide her with the entirety of her salary before she was injured, she argued her actual loss of gross income equaled the difference between her previous salary and the amount paid to her under workmen s compensation. Continued
28 Income Loss Benefits and Workmen s Compensation 28 Danko continued Erie argued that because Danko was already receiving over eighty percent of her previous salary through the workmen s compensation benefits, they were not obligated to pay her anything. The Superior Court agreed with Danko, finding that the MVFRL contains a coordination of benefits provision, which makes workmen s compensation benefits primary for income loss and other benefits which might be due a claimant who suffers disability in a work-related accident involving a motor vehicle. The Court held that Danko could recover eighty percent of the difference between her previous salary and her workmen s compensation benefit, thereby reversing the trial court s summary judgment.
29 Income Loss and Social Security Benefits In Panichelli v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Group, 543 Pa. 114 (Pa. 1996), Panichelli filed a claim with Liberty for income loss benefits after injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident left him unable to work. Liberty began paying Panichelli income loss benefits, but deducted an amount equal to the monthly social security benefit Panichelli received at the time. Panichelli then sued Liberty for the entire amount of his lost income. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Panichelli. The Superior Court affirmed the summary judgment. Liberty appealed, arguing that allowing Panichelli to recover income loss benefits while receiving social security benefits resulting in a double recovery. 29 Continued
30 Income Loss and Social Security Benefits Panichelli continued 30 The main issue on appeal was whether sick pay and social security benefits received by an insured should be deducted by an insurer in calculating the insured s actual loss of gross income. The Supreme Court, agreeing with the lower courts, found that based on the language of the MVFRL, sick pay and social security benefits programs must be construed as providing benefits in excess of and not in duplication of the income loss benefits under section 1712(2). The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts rulings in favor of Panichelli.
31 WHAT QUALIFIES FOR COVERAGE UNDER FIRST PARTY BENEFITS? 31 Accidental Death Benefits
32 Accidental Death Benefits 32 Death benefits are paid to the representatives of the insured. To qualify for death benefits, death must occur within 24 months of the date of the motor vehicle accident and must be caused by injuries sustained in the motor accident. Only those insured as defined in 75 Pa.C.S.A 1702 qualify for death benefits. That is: An individual identified by name as an insured in a policy of motor vehicle liability insurance OR A spouse or other relative of the named insured or a minor in the custody of either the named insured or relative of the named insured who resides in the same household Occupants and non-occupants such as pedestrians cannot recover death benefits.
33 WHAT QUALIFIES FOR COVERAGE UNDER FIRST PARTY BENEFITS? 33 Funeral Benefits
34 Funeral Benefits It is mandatory that insurance companies offer funeral benefits, but it is not mandatory for the insured to have funeral benefits. 34 The funeral benefit is only recoverable if the insured dies within 24 months of the accident. Funeral benefits are limited to expenses directly related to the funeral, burial, cremation or other form of disposition of the remains of the individual after death.
35 WHO MAY CLAIM FIRST PARTY BENEFITS? 35
36 Eligible Claimants of First Party Benefits Named insured on the policy 36 An insured cannot recover first party benefits in an action for damages against a tortfeasor or an uninsured or underinsured motorist. 75 Pa.C.S.A Not the named insured on the policy but resides in the same house as the named insured Named excluded persons are not eligible for benefits Occupant of the insured vehicle Non-occupant who is injured in an accident with an insured vehicle
37 Who Qualifies as an Occupant? Occupying means performing an act or acts, which is or are normally associated with the immediate use of the vehicle. A person qualifies as an occupant of a vehicle, as long as they meet four criteria: There must be a causal relation or connection between the injury and use of the vehicle The person must be reasonably close to the vehicle The person must be vehicle oriented, rather than sidewalk or highway oriented The person must be engaged in a transaction essential to the use of the vehicle at the time Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Contrisciane, 504 Pa. 328 (Pa. 1984). 37
38 Example of an Occupant 38 In Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Contrisciane, 504 Pa. 328 (Pa. 1984), the court set forth the criteria for occupying a vehicle. Mr. Contrisciane was involved in a minor motor vehicle collision while he was operating a vehicle owned by his employer. He left his vehicle to give a police officer his driver s license and owner s card. While standing outside of the officer s vehicle an unknown, and therefore presumed uninsured, motorist struck and killed Mr. Contrisciane. Mr. Contrisciane s estate sued Utica Mutual Insurance for uninsured motorist coverage. The claim proceeded to arbitration, where the arbitrator denied Mr. Contrisciane s estate benefits under the policy of the vehicle, claiming he was not occupying the vehicle at the time and therefore the policy did not cover him as an insured person. After Utica denied the claim for benefits, the executrix of Mr. Contrisciane s estate appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County. Continued
39 Utica continued Example of an Occupant 39 The Court of Common pleas found that Mr. Contrisciane was occupying the vehicle, and reversed the arbitrator s award, holding that Mr. Constriciane s estate was eligible to receive up to full amount. Utica appealed to the Superior Court who affirmed the trial court s decision. Utica then appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. On the issue of whether Mr. Contrisciane was occupying the vehicle, the Supreme Court rejected the view that occupying meant being inside or in physical contact with the vehicle. The Court adopted the view that occupying meant performing an act or acts, which is or are normally associated with the immediate use of the auto. The Court found this definition more consistent with the Uninsured Motorist Act, the purpose of which is to protect people lawfully using roadways who suffer grave injuries through the negligence of others. The Court found that Mr. Contrisciane met the criteria for occupying a vehicle and therefore, as an occupant, was entitled to coverage under the Utica policy.
40 Example of an Occupant 40 In Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Caperilla, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (E.D. Pa. July 9, 2004), Property and Casualty Insurance Company filed an action seeking declaration that there is no coverage under a commercial automobile insurance policy issued to a borough. Caperilla, a borough police office, filed a claim for benefits under the policy. Both parties motioned for summary judgment. The Court denied Property and Casualty s motion and granted Caperilla s motion. The main issue in the case was whether Caperilla was occupying the vehicle at the time of the accident and was therefore insured. Caperilla exited his vehicle to assist another officer with a pedestrian stop. When he realized an approaching vehicle might strike him, he ran back towards his vehicle but the approaching vehicle still struck him. Continued
41 Example of an Occupant Prop. & Cas continued 41 The court found that because the nature of the officer s job required him to exit and reenter his vehicle frequently, the fact that he was temporary out of his vehicle did not render him highway oriented as apposed to vehicle oriented. Additionally, the court found that the officer was engaged in activity essential to the use of his vehicle, as one of the uses of the vehicle was to transport him to pedestrian stops. Therefore, the court held that Caperilla was occupying the vehicle and was insured.
42 Example of a Person who is not an Occupant In Petika v. Transcon. Ins. Co., 2004 PA Super 275 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004), Petika applied to Transcontinental Insurance Company for uninsured motorist benefits when he was struck by a vehicle while directing traffic on a highway, after leaving his work truck to reclaim objects that fell off his coworker s truck. Transcontinental denied the claim. Petika filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and Transcontinental counterclaimed for declaratory judgment. 42 The trial court entered a declaratory judgment for Transcontinental following a bench trial, finding that Petika was not vehicle orientated at the time of the accident and therefore, not insured. Petika appealed. The Superior Court affirmed the trial court ruling, finding that Petika did not meet all four criteria set forth in Utica, namely he was not vehicle oriented and was not engaged in activity essential to the use of the vehicle. He was highway oriented, because he was directing traffic, and his vehicle was extraneous, not essential, to his efforts to control traffic.
43 Example of a Non-Occupant 43 In Bodnik v. Philadelphia, 135 Pa. Commw. 453 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1990), Bodnik filed a claim for benefits on behalf of the estate of Anderson, who was struck and killed by a vehicle while he was standing next to an occupied police vehicle and speaking with the officer inside. Travelers Insurance Company and Pennsylvania Financial Responsibility Assigned Claims Plan motioned for summary judgment asserting they were not liable under Section 75 Pa.C.S.A. 1752(a) since another source of benefits was available from the city, as the patrol vehicle was insured under Philadelphia s self-insurance plan. Section 75 Pa.C.S.A. 1752(a) states that the Pennsylvania Financial Responsibility Assigned claims is the source of recovery only if no other sources are available. The Court of Common Pleas granted summary judgment, and the City of Philadelphia appealed, arguing their vehicle was not involved in the accident, and therefore they were not liable. Under 75 Pa.C.S.A. 1713(a) a person who is not an occupant of a vehicle, or otherwise insured, may recover from any vehicle involved in an accident. The court rejected the City of Philadelphia s argument that the vehicle must cause the accident to be involved in the accident, and affirmed the summary judgment.
44 Special Vehicles / Exclusions 44 Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Yungwirth, 940 A.2d 523 (Pa. Super. 2008). On May 11, 2002, Defendant Yungwirth was a passenger in an all-terrain vehicle ( ATV ), which was owned and operated by Michael Tomasic. At the time of the accident, the ATV was not being operated on a public road, but was operated on a public road both prior to and after the accident. The ATV was not insured. However, Tomasic was insured under two automobile policies issued by plaintiff Nationwide. Both policies contained UM coverage and each had an identical provision that excluded ceratin vehicles from the definition of uninsured motor vehicles. One of the exclusions was for [a]ny equipment or vehicle designed for use mainly off public roads except while on public roads. Based on this exclusion, Nationwide denied UM coverage to Yungwirth and filed the instant declaratory judgment action.
45 Special Vehicles/Exclusions Yungwirth, continued 45 The Superior Court found, contrary to the trial court, that these exclusions were permissible under the applicable provisions of the MVFRL. Specifically, the Superior Court held that the definition of motor vehicle under the Snowmobile All-Terrain Vehicle Law, 75 Pa.C.S and 7721, superseded the more general definition contained in the Vehicle Code at 75 Pa.C.S Accordingly, the Superior Court held that the exclusion at issue did not impermissibly narrow the MVFRL, and remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Nationwide.
46 Special Vehicles/Exclusions 46 Burdick v. Erie Insurance Group, 946 A.2d 1106 (Pa. Super. 2008). - Appellant insureds filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against appellee insurer. The insureds argued they were entitled to uninsured motorist (UM) benefits. The Court of Common Pleas of Elk County Civil Division (Pennsylvania) granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer concluding that a policy exclusion did not violate the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL), 75 Pa.C.S et seq. The uninsured motorist was operating an uninsured dirt bike in a private driveway when the dirt bike entered the roadway and collided with the insured's vehicle. Consequently, the insureds filed a claim for UM benefits. The insurer denied the claim on the basis that the dirt bike was specifically excluded because it was designed for use primarily off road.
47 Special Vehicles/Exclusions Burdick, continued 47 The appellate court held that the dirt bike fell within the definition of a motor vehicle as defined by 75 Pa.C.S Pa.C.S clearly provided that UM coverage was to provide protection for persons who suffered injury arising out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle and were legally entitled to recover damages therefore from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles. 75 Pa.C.S. 1731(b). Accordingly, the exclusion which excluded UM coverage for a collision with a motor vehicle intended primarily for off-road use, violated the MVFRL as it was clear that the Legislature considered whether the MVFRL should be applicable to situations involving recreational vehicles not intended for highway use, but specifically chose not to limit UM coverage where the accident involved this type of vehicle. The judgment of the trial court was reversed. The case was remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the insureds.
Auto Liability/PIP Claims Under the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Responsibility Law and Similar State Statutes 1 SRS - HARTFORD NATIONAL WEBINAR FEBRUARY 3, 2010 PRESENTED BY WAYMAN, IRVIN & MCAULEY, LLC
Auto Liability/PIP Claims Under the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Responsibility Law and Similar State Statutes 1 FOR BROADSPIRE JULY 20, 2010 PRESENTED BY WAYMAN, IRVIN & MCAULEY, LLC WWW.WAYMANLAW.COM (412)
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Safe Auto Insurance Company, : Appellant : : v. : No. 2247 C.D. 2004 : Argued: February 28, 2005 School District of Philadelphia, : Pride Coleman and Helena Coleman
OVERVIEW OF THE MVFRL AND INSURANCE POLICY PROVISIONS Scott B. Cooper, Esquire SCHMIDT KRAMER P.C. 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 firstname.lastname@example.org 717-232-6300 (t) 717-232-6467 (f) At first
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PL EAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PA FRED LILLEY & KAREN LILLEY, : Plaintiffs : : v. : NO.: 98-00,805 : BLUE CROSS OF NORTHEASTERN : PENNSYLVANIA : OPINION and ORDER In this declaratory
A SUMMARY OF COLORADO UNINSURED AND UNDERINSURED INSURANCE COVERAGE LAW April 2004 By: Mark Kane and HayDen Kane By reviewing this document the reader acknowledges that he or she has reviewed, understands
2002 PA Super 50 PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. HELEN S. ZIATYK, Appellant NO. 302 EDA 2001 Appeal from the Order entered March 20,
In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION TWO FRANCIS GRAHAM, ) No. ED97421 ) Respondent, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of St. Louis County vs. ) ) Honorable Steven H. Goldman STATE
VIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY -- 2015 SESSION CHAPTER 585 An Act to amend and reenact 38.2-2206 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Article 7 of Chapter 3 of Title 8.01 a
New York State Department of Financial Services Home Regulation 68 index page In order to assist you in viewing Regulation 68 in its most current form, this webpage has incorporated the text of the 1st
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA STANLEY SMITH, et al. : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INS. CO. : NO. 07-0834 L. Felipe Restrepo United States Magistrate
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II JENNIFER HELGESON and ANDREW HELGESON, Appellants, No. 41371-0-II v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION VIKING INSURANCE COMPANY OF WISCONSIN a foreign corporation,
CUNDIFF V. STATE FARM: ALLOWING DOUBLE RECOVERY UNDER UIM COVERAGE AND WORKERS COMPENSATION Melissa Healy INTRODUCTION In Cundiff v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., the Arizona Supreme Court
No. 122, September Term, 1999 Barry W. Lewis v. Allstate Insurance Company [The Maryland statutory provisions regulating motor vehicle insurance, Maryland Code (1997, 2001 Supp.), 19-501 et seq. of the
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF
59202 Prepared by the North Dakota Legislative Council staff for the Transportation Committee March 2004 UNINSURED AND UNDERINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE - HISTORY This memorandum reviews the law on uninsured
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS FARM BUREAU GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED August 20, 2015 Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant- Appellee, v No. 320710 Oakland Circuit Court YVONNE J. HARE,
2009 WI APP 51 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 2008AP1036 Complete Title of Case: JOHN A. MITTNACHT AND THERESA MITTNACHT, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, V. ST. PAUL FIRE AND CASUALTY
CHAPTER 5 AN ACT SB 411 Relating to personal injury protection benefits; creating new provisions; and amending ORS 742.500, 742.502, 742.504, 742.506, 742.524 and 742.544. Be It Enacted by the People of
2014 PA Super 136 ERIE INSURANCE GROUP, v. JACK C. CATANIA, JR. AND DEBORAH ANN CATANIA, Appellee Appellants IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 1057 WDA 2013 Appeal from the Judgment Entered June
WRONGFUL DISCLAIMERS OF UM and UIM COVERAGE UNDER BUSINESS AUTO POLICIES BY: James C. Haggerty HAGGERTY, GOLDBERG, SCHLEIFER & KUPERSMITH, P.C. 1835 Market Street, Suite 2700 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (267)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA THE ROYAL INSURANCE COMPANY : CIVIL ACTION OF AMERICA, AN ILLINOIS : STOCK CORPORATION : Plaintiff, : : v. : : KEVIN BEAUCHAMP
Filed 8/12/13 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR PROGRESSIVE CHOICE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Respondent, B242429
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. : CIVIL ACTION : vs. : : NO. 99-CV-4871 THOMAS A. RIDDER, JR. : MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JOYNER,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT NOT PRECEDENTIAL No. 08-1412 In re: GEORGE W. COLE, Debtor CITY OF WILKES-BARRE, Appellant v. ROBERT P. SHEILS, Jr., Trustee On Appeal from the United
If you have questions or would like further information regarding Uninsured-Underinsured Motorist Coverage, please contact: Jennifer Medenwald 312-540-7588 email@example.com Result Oriented. Success
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 05a0308n.06 Filed: April 21, 2005 No. 04-5393 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY CO., Plaintiff-Appellee,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA FILED THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY and THE PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY, vs. Petitioners, CASE NO.: 85,337 BRETT ALLAN WARREN, Personal DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL Representative
NOTICE Decision filed 05/03/12. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2012 IL App (5th) 100579-U NO. 5-10-0579
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 SOKHAM NUON, SOCHEATA NUON, AND PHOROM ROS, v. Appellants BRISTOL WEST INSURANCE GROUP, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 1867
114CSR63 WEST VIRGINIA LEGISLATIVE RULE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER SERIES 63 STANDARD MOTOR VEHICLE POLICY PROVISIONS Section. '114-63-1. General. '114-63-2. Definitions. '114-63-3. Liability Insurance Provisions.
HOUSE DOCKET, NO. 2366 FILED ON: 1/20/2011 HOUSE............... No. 2035 The Commonwealth of Massachusetts PRESENTED BY: Garrett J. Bradley To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth
[Cite as State Auto. Ins. Co. v. Pasquale, 113 Ohio St.3d 11, 2007-Ohio-970.] STATE AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT, v. PASQUALE ET AL., APPELLEES. [Cite as State Auto. Ins. Co. v. Pasquale, 113
Reed Armstrong Quarterly January 2009 http://www.reedarmstrong.com/default.asp Contributors: William B. Starnes II Tori L. Cox IN THIS ISSUE: Joint and Several Liability The Fault of Settled Tortfeasors
37 Fla. L. Weekly D1140c Insurance -- Uninsured motorist -- Coverage -- Stacking -- Action against UM insurer by insured policyholder who was injured in single-car accident while riding as passenger in
Prepared by: Barton L. Slavin, Esq. 1. Identify Insurance Company - On the Police Report there is a three digit code that identifies the insurance company for a vehicle. The following link will take you
Supreme Court of Missouri en banc MARK KARSCIG, Appellant, v. No. SC90080 JENNIFER M. MCCONVILLE, Appellant, and AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PETTIS
180 DAUPHIN COUNTY REPORTS [124 Dauph. Proposed Distribution, Exhibit F; Answer of CHFI to Petition for Relief, para. 17) Therefore, CHFI is not a health care provider, the type to which the testator intended
2:08-cv-12533-DPH-PJK Doc # 67 Filed 03/26/13 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 2147 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, v. Plaintiff, MICHIGAN CATASTROPHIC
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JAMES PERKINS, Plaintiff-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION July 18, 2013 9:00 a.m. v No. 310473 Grand Traverse Circuit Court AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, LC No. 2011-028699-NF
Ed. Note: Opinion Rendered April 11, 2000 SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA No. 99-C-2573 LEE CARRIER AND HIS WIFE MARY BETH CARRIER Versus RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION PROGRESSIVE CLASSIC INSURANCE February Term 2005 COMPANY Plaintiff, No. 0507 v. Commerce
NOTICE Decision filed 07/13/10. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the NO. 5-07-0468 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS disposition
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CAROL DEMIZIO AND ANTHONY : CIVIL ACTION DEMIZIO in their own right and as : ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE : NO. 05-409 OF MATTHEW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT Israel : : v. : No. 3:98cv302(JBA) : State Farm Mutual Automobile : Insurance Company et al. : Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. #82] After
2013 PA Super 17 SALLY MCWEENEY, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ESTATE OF JANET R. STRICKLER, Appellant No. 98 MDA 2012 Appeal from the Order Entered December 16, 2011 In the Court of
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Jay Ebersole, Administrator of the : Estate of Stephanie Jo Ebersole, : Deceased : : v. : No. 1732 C.D. 2014 : Argued: February 9, 2015 Southeastern Pennsylvania
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2496 September Term, 2014 MARYLAND INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY Berger, Reed, Rodowsky, Lawrence
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 14a0331n.06 No. 12-1887 ARTHUR HILL, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT v. CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY OF
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 SANDI AND WILLIAM G. SNYDER, H/W, Appellants IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY D/B/A/ A/K/A LIBERTY
2000 WI App 171 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 99-0776 Complete Title of Case: RONNIE PROPHET AND BADON PROPHET, V. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR COMPANY, INC.,
20-279.21. "Motor vehicle liability policy" defined. (a) A "motor vehicle liability policy" as said term is used in this Article shall mean an owner's or an operator's policy of liability insurance, certified
Affirmed and Opinion filed January 13, 2000. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-98-00234-CV UNITED STATES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Appellant V. UNDERWRITERS AT INTEREST and STEVEN RICHARD BISHOP,
No-Fault Automobile Insurance By Margaret C. Jasper, Esq. Prior to the enactment of state no-fault insurance legislation, recovery for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident were subject
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR SUSSEX COUNTY ELIZABETH RASKAUSKAS ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) C.A. No. CPU6-09-000991 GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE ) COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE ) DIRECT
MONTGOMERY COUNTY LAW REPORTER 140-301 2003 MBA 30 Northern Ins. Co. of New York v. Resinski [140 M.C.L.R., Part II Northern Insurance Company of New York v. Resinski APPEAL and ERROR Motion for Summary
[J-119-2012] [MO Saylor, J.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT HERD CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, P.C., v. Appellee STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant No. 35 MAP 2012 Appeal
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal
SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA January 2000 Term No. 26558 ANTHONY IAFOLLA, Plaintiff Below, Appellant v. THOMAS RAY TRENT, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF BRIAN KEITH ROBINETTE,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA JOHN CARGUILLO, as Personal Representative of the Estate of JOHN JOSEPH CARGUILLO, deceased, Petitioner, CASE NO. 71, 799 VS. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,
295 Ga. 487 FINAL COPY S13G1048. CARTER v. PROGRESSIVE MOUNTAIN INSURANCE. HINES, Presiding Justice. This Court granted a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals in Carter v. Progressive Mountain Ins.,
STACKING UP: UNDERSTANDING AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COVERAGES The Missouri Bar Solo and Small Firm Conference June 14, 2013 Sidney Eckman Wheelan Tatlow, Gump, Faiella, and Wheelan, LLC 1 48--1 WHAT IS STACKING?
Supreme Court No. 2000-205-Appeal. (PC 99-4922) John J. McVicker et al. v. Travelers Insurance Company et al. : : : Present: Williams, C.J., Lederberg, Bourcier, Flanders, and Goldberg, JJ. O P I N I O
LC 0 Regular Session // (TSB/ps) D R A F T SUMMARY Provides that insurer that has duty to defend insured against claim has fiduciary duty toward insured if insurer does defend against claim. Provides that
1 of 8 6/25/2008 3:39 PM BULLETIN 96-7 FREQUENT PROBLEMS FOUND IN FILINGS Property and Casualty Lines Over the years we have found that insurance companies consistently fail to make their forms and filings
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2009 SESSION LAW 2009-561 SENATE BILL 749 AN ACT TO REVISE AND CLARIFY THE REQUIREMENTS FOR UNINSURED AND UNDERINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE IN MOTOR VEHICLE LIABILITY
REL: 06/30/2011 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
Changing Tort Reform In Kentucky Christel Siglock By changing its current No-Fault and Tort law options, Kentucky could; 1) Reduce the number of lawsuits filed, 2) Thus reducing insurance company payouts
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan Syllabus This syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. Chief
Certiorari Denied, June 25, 2014, No. 34,732 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: 2014-NMCA-077 Filing Date: April 30, 2014 Docket No. 32,779 SHERYL WILKESON, v. Plaintiff-Appellant,
Search GO LOGIN LOGOUT HOME JOIN ALEC CONTACT ABOUT MEMBERS EVENTS & MEETINGS MODEL LEGISLATION TASK FORCES ALEC INITIATIVES PUBLICATIONS NEWS Model Legislation Civil Justice Commerce, Insurance, and Economic
Public Act No. 14-20 AN ACT CONCERNING UNINSURED AND UNDERINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE OFFSETS. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened: Section 1. Section 38a-336
COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: Complete Title of Case: 98-1821-FT MONICA M. BLAZEKOVIC, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, Petition for Review filed. CITY OF MILWAUKEE, PLAINTIFF, V. CITY
RENDERED: JUNE 14, 2002; 2:00 p.m. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED C ommonwealth Of K entucky Court Of A ppeals NO. 2001-CA-001138-MR ATLANTA SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY APPELLANT APPEAL FROM MONTGOMERY CIRCUIT COURT
Insurance Department Sec. 38a-334 page 1 (10-00) TABLE OF CONTENTS Minimum Provisions for Automobile Liability Insurance Policies Covering Motor Vehicles Required areas of coverage.... 38a-334-1 Definitions....
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: DAVID L. TAYLOR THOMAS R. HALEY III Jennings Taylor Wheeler & Haley P.C. Carmel, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES: DOUGLAS D. SMALL Foley & Small South Bend, Indiana
78th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2015 Regular Session Enrolled Senate Bill 411 Sponsored by Senators GELSER, ROSENBAUM; Senator SHIELDS (Presession filed.) CHAPTER... AN ACT Relating to personal injury
Insurance Code section 11580.2 (a) (1) No policy of bodily injury liability insurance covering liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of any motor vehicle, except for policies that
COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION 2002 WI App 237 Case No.: 02-0261 Complete Title of Case: KENNETH A. FOLKMAN, SR., DEBRA J. FOLKMAN AND KENNETH A. FOLKMAN, JR., Petition for Review filed.
No. 89-261 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1990 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, -vs- Plaintiff and Respondent, THE ESTATE OF GARY NELSON BRAUN, Deceased, and CHESTER V. BRAUN,
INSURANCE FACTS for Pennsylvania Consumers Your Guide to Auto Insurance Premiums 1-877-881-6388 Toll-free Automated Consumer Line www.insurance.state.pa.us Pennsylvnaia Insurance Department Website Required
ONYX BUSINESS AUTO POLICY COVERAGE Various provisions in this policy restrict overage Read the entire policy carefully to determine rights, duties and what is and is not covered. Throughout this policy
Page 1 1 of 20 DOCUMENTS Colony Insurance Company v. Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, and Industrial Maintenance and Mechanical, Inc.; Geogia-Pacific, LLC v. Colony Insurance Company
What are No-Fault benefits? "No-fault benefits" are also often referred to as "Personal Injury Protection benefits or "PIP Benefits" for short. No Fault refers to insurance coverage provided by your own
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 3009 September Term, 2010 ON REMAND DEBORAH HIOB, et al. v. PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. Krauser, C.J., Kehoe, Berger, JJ. Opinion