Jim and Carrie Carroll at Carroll and Carroll, P.C. represent the injured people of Pennsylvania and New York in Bradford, Sullivan, Tioga, Susquehanna, and Chemung counties in personal injury, premises liability, slip and fall, automobile accident and workers’ compensation cases Jim and Carrie Carroll at Carroll and Carroll, P.C. represent the injured people of Pennsylvania and New York in Bradford, Sullivan, Tioga, Susquehanna, and Chemung counties in personal injury, premises liability, slip and fall, automobile accident and workers’ compensation cases
Personal Injury
Premises Liability: The Slip and Fall
Workers' Compensation
Vehicle and Automobile Accidents
Attorney
Staff
Blog Category:

Vehicle and Automobile Accidents

    8/28/2008
    James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
    Comments (0)

    Court Holds No Underinsured Motorist Coverage Under Antique/Classic Car Policy Unless Actually Occupying It

    On August 26, 2008, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Sanchez, J.) granted Foremost Insurance Group's Motion for Summary Judgment in Benner v. Foremost Insurance Group.  This case involved the tragic death of a girl, Benner, who was killed while occupying her friend's vehicle.  An underinsured motorist claim ("UIM") was pursued on a family member's Antique and Classic Auto insurance Policy and the insurance company denied the claim because it said that under the terms of the policy Benner had to be "actually occupying" the antique/classic vehicle at the time of the accident to qualify for UIM coverage. 

    Benner's Estate argued that under Quinney v. American Modern Home Insurance Company, 145 F.Supp.2d 603 (M.D. Pa. 2001) she was entitled to coverage as a family member/insured and did not need to be occupying the vehicle to qualify for coverage.  However, the District Court observes that the policy language in Quinney is not the same as the language in Benner's policy.  In Quinney the policy language stated that the coverage was provided to an insured/family member without the actual occupying requirement but in the Benner policy the family member/insured had to be occupying.  Thus, since she was not occupying the antique/classic vehicle at the time of the accident, the Estate could not recover. 
     
    Thanks to Scott B. Cooper, Esquire who provided this information.

    Labels: automobile accident, case law, federal court, insurance, uim Underinsurance,


There are no comments.

Post a comment

Post a Comment to "Court Holds No Underinsured Motorist Coverage Under Antique/Classic Car Policy Unless Actually Occupying It"

To reply to this message, enter your reply in the box labeled "Message", hit "Post Message."

Username:*

Password:*

Register for an account

Message:

Notify me of follow-up comments via email.

For security purposes, please enter the text in the graphic below: [hit F5 if you can not read the text]

Quick Contact

Name:

Phone:

Email:

(We do not share or sell your email)

Tell us more:


Carroll & Carroll, P.C.
100 Center Street
Athens, PA 18810
Phone: (570) 882-8683


Get Directions

Map / Directions


©2009 Carroll & Carroll, P.C., All Rights Reserved, Reproduced with Permission
The Best in Website Design for Attorneys, Attorney Web Blogs That Work, Attorney Search Engine Optimization, Optimized Video Services for Lawyers and Update Your Website Yourself
by Foster Web Marketing - The Best Attorney Website Design & Hosting Firm
Get SEO Tips from The Attorney Internet Marketing Blog