Auto Law
By Michele J. Mintz, Esquire (215-575-2742 or mjmintz@mdwcg.com)
Pennsylvania
Underinsured Motorist Claim Remanded To Arbitration Panel For Failure To Properly Apply The Rescue Doctrine.
Bole v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 2009 PA Super. 38; 2009 Pa.Super. LEXIS 47 (Pa.Super.Ct. 2009)
Ronald Bole had made a claim for underinsured benefits from his carrier after he was injured while responding to a serious motor vehicle accident as a volunteer fireman. The motor vehicle accident Bole was responding to was caused by an underinsured motorist who had been driving too fast and hydroplaned in a rainstorm. As Bole was leaving his home in his truck to respond to the call, a bridge on his property collapsed due to a rainstorm and Bole was thrown from the truck and crushed against an I-beam. The arbitrators hearing Bole's underinsured motorist claim found he was not entitled to benefits because his claim did not fall under the rescue doctrine since he was not actively engaged in a rescue. Bole appealed the arbitrators' finding. The Superior Court found that Bole was actively engaged in a rescue at the time of his injury. The court remanded the case to the arbitrators to apply the proper standard of law.
First Named Insured's Burden To Establish That Rejection Of UIM Coverage Was Made Without Knowledge Or Authorization.
Toth v. Donegal Companies, 2009 PA Super 4; 2009 Pa.Super. LEXIS 41 (Pa.Super.Ct. 2009)
Prior to April 1997, Darla Toth and her husband, John Toth, both named insureds on a Donegal policy, had UIM coverage. In April 1997, John Toth signed his and Darla's names to a UIM coverage rejection form. Revised declaration pages were sent to the home, and the Toths paid reduced premiums after rejecting UIM coverage. After her accident in January 2001, Darla's claim for UIM benefits was denied because of the rejection signed on her behalf by her husband. Darla argued that the rejection form was invalid because it was signed by her husband and the MVFRL requires a form rejecting UIM coverage be signed by the first named insured. The Superior Court found that when the signature of the first named insured appears on a UIM rejection, an insurer has complied with the MVFRL. It is then the insured's burden to prove that the signature was made without the insured's knowledge or authorization.
New Jersey
Physician Qualified To Interpret MRI Must Testify At Trial, Or Court Must Give A Limiting Instruction Regarding The Substance Of The MRI.
Agha v. Feiner, 2009 N.J. LEXIS 47 (N.J. Feb. 26, 2009)
In order to establish at trial that an MRI showed proof of a herniated disc, a physician qualified to interpret an MRI must testify. If a physician qualified to interpret an MRI does not testify, the court must give a limiting instruction regarding the substance of the MRI.
Insured Injured In Drive-By Shooting Is Not Entitled To UM Benefits.
Livsey v Mercury Ins. Group., 2009 N.J. LEXIS 15 (N.J. Feb. 19, 2009)
Livsey, a Mercury Insurance Group insured, was returning to her car after buying groceries when she was shot. Two witnesses said they saw a Toyota fleeing the scene. It was never determined if the shots came from the Toyota or who fired the shots. Livsey made a UM claim with Mercury Insurance, which denied the claim on the grounds that there was not an accident that involved an uninsured motor vehicle. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that Livsey's injuries from the shooting were not causally connected to her use of a motor vehicle and she was not entitled to UM coverage under the Mercury Insurance policy.
