|
|
Newswire - Most recent posts
Posted on Friday, May 7, 2010
Be aware of what your underinsured motorist vehicle coverage does not cover.
I represented a West Chester resident who was injured through no fault of his own by another driver who crossed the centerline and struck the bus he was driving. He sustained serious and permanent back and neck injuries. Unfortunately, the offending driver had purchased only the minimal amount of bodily injury coverage mandated by law in Pennsylvania – $15,000. It was clear from the outset that my client’s injuries were worth well in excess of $100,000. Due to the seriousness of these injuries the wrongdoer’s insurance company offered the money before we were forced to file suit. My client had been driving a school bus in Downingtown at the time and under Pennsylvania’s motor vehicle law, an injured person must first look to the vehicle he or she is occupying under which to make a claim for underinsured coverage. Unfortunately, however, Pennsylvania does not require any vehicle owner to purchase underinsured coverage for either the owner or other drivers. In this case, the bus company chose not to provide such coverage for its employees.
Since my client needed life time treatment for his neck and back, he next turned to his private automobile vehicle policy for the underinsured coverage which he had purchased for just such a situation. However, his insurance company had inserted a clause in the auto policy which stated that his underinsured motorist coverage would not be available if he was injured while driving a vehicle which was furnished by another person or corporation and made available for his “regular use.” In this case, the insurance company argued for over a year that the school bus was furnished for my client’s “regular use”! This, despite the fact that he was only using it for employment to transport children. I was able to successfully argue that since he did not take the bus home at night nor use it at any other time, then this exclusion should not apply. The insurance company finally agreed and paid for my client’s injuries.
However, a recent Pennsylvania court decision held that a trash truck which was used by a plaintiff, “even when only used for four days per month for only six months per year”, was enough of a “regular use” to permit his own company to refuse to pay his underinsured losses. What a travesty! Here a consumer was wise enough to buy underinsured motorist coverage for self protection but got ripped off by the insurance company and then further assaulted by the court. This case is presently on appeal and hopefully the higher court will do the right thing and reverse the ruling to protect the consumer.
If that decision had been in effect when my client’s case was ongoing, my client, although he paid premiums for self protection, would have been out of luck recovering any underinsured coverage which he desperately needed.
Please check your policy for this type of exclusionary language and call me with questions. Peter J. Hart
|
