In our previous post, we began looking at the topic of no fault insurance, specifically the conditions under which an insurance company is obligated to provide personal injury protection benefits. As we noted, there are several conditions laid out in state law, some of which we looked at last time.
We left off by mentioning the requirement that a policyholder must show that the bodily injury in question arose out of the ownership, operation maintenance or use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle. This requirement excludes accidents which result from uses of motor vehicles that cannot be classified as motor vehicle use.
Generally speaking, this requirement excludes accidents involving parked vehicles, though there are certain exceptions listed under state law. These include situations where an individual is injured while occupying, entering into or alighting from the vehicle, as well as loading, unloading or doing mechanical work on a vehicle. These exceptions do not apply, though, if the injured person qualifies for certain federal or state benefits, if the injury arose from the use or operation of another vehicle, or the injury occurred immediately after the vehicle became disabled.
The exact scope of this requirement recently came up before the Michigan Supreme Court. The court heard oral arguments last week raising the issue of whether an individual who was injured while grabbing items from his truck is entitled to coverage under his no-fault policy. The injury reportedly occurred in 2012 after the truck driver had parked at his home.
In our next post, we’ll look at why the man’s claim was denied, and what arguments are being made in the case.
Source: Claims Journal, “Sixth Circuit Court Predicts Kentucky Will Reject the Adoption of Reverse Bad Faith,” Steven Plitt, Aug. 12, 2015.
No Comments
Leave a comment