Wednesday, April 02, 2008

Negligent bicyclist not "uninsured motorist"

Jimmie Rogers was driving his son to preschool on September 28, 2005. While he was stopped at an intersection, somebody on a bicycle rode right into Rogers' car, smashing the window on the passenger side. Glass from the broken window injured Rogers' eye.

The Appellate Court's opinion in Standard Mutual Ins. Co. v. Rogers, 2008 WL 795294 (Ill.App.3d Dist. 3/20/08), does not advise how old the bicyclist was. The case, however, arises from the Circuit Court of Will County -- it may be safe to speculate, therefore, that we are not talking about a bicycle messenger, such as those that careen wildly about Chicago's Loop. Their employers may have some sort of liability coverage. But the bicyclist in that hit Jimmie Rogers' car apparently did not.

So Rogers sought recompense from his own auto carrier under his uninsured motorists coverage. By law, every auto policy must uninsured and underinsured motorists' coverage (UM and UIM coverage) in amounts at least equal to the liability minimums required by law ($20,000 per person, $40,000 per occurrence, $15,000 property damage -- see §7-203 of the Illinois Motor Vehicle Code).

But did UM coverage apply in Rogers' case? That was the question that Rogers' carrier, Standard Mutual, asked by way of a declaratory judgment action. Will County Circuit Court Judge Barbara Petrungaro held that it did not; the Appellate Court agreed. The unanimous opinion, by Justice Mary W. McDade, looked at the text of the Illinois Insurance Code provision that mandates UM coverage, §143(a) (215 ILCS 5/143(a)). The court emphasized that the statute requires that coverage be provided "for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor vehicles." (Slip op. at p. 4, emphasis in original.)

The Insurance Code does not define "motor vehicle" -- but the Vehicle Code does. Justice McDade's opinion cites §1-146 of the Vehicle Code, which defines "'motor vehicle' as '[e]very vehicle which is self-propelled and every vehicle which is propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires, but not operated upon rails, except for vehicles moved solely by human power and motorized wheelchairs.'" (Slip op. at p. 5, emphasis in original.) The court also examined the Vehicle Code definitions of "vehicle" and "bicycle."

In light of these statutory definitions, the court concluded "it is clear that a 'bicycle' cannot be considered a 'motor vehicle' for the purposes of the uninsured motor vehicle coverage." Rogers could not collect on his UM claim for the bicycle collision.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Illustration obtained from this site.

No comments: