Unbelievable Car Insurance Claim Case

A recent trial court ruled that it had to follow Pennsylvania statutory law, which permitted financial recovery for a criminal defendant injured in a car accident while riding in a vehicle he helped steal.

It was determined by the court that he was not physically operating the automobile at the time of the accident and was therefore not considered a “user” under the law. However, since he was “occupying a motor vehicle” and was covered under his mother’s auto policy, he was entitled to uninsured motorist coverage under his mother’s policy, despite the fact that he was occupying the vehicle without the permission of the owner. He did, however, live with his mother. It got a bit complicated to sort out!

This car accident case ruling was necessitated because the automobile insurance policy was determined by the court to be so confusing that it did not cover this type of situation. If you think you have a hard time interpreting your auto insurance policy, don’t feel too bad, the courts do too.

Peter Hart

Related Posts