In September of 2014, the Court of Appeals of Kentucky heard a case with regard to an August 2010 car v. motorcycle accident. (See Black v. Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co. 2014 WL 4377902 (Ky. App. 2014)). The motorcycle at the time of the accident was not covered by the insurance policy. Her husband allowed the policy to lapse and he had not registered it. The motorcycle was under a lot of repairs at the time. The injured plaintiff injured her neck and back.
Though at the time of the Kentucky car v. motorcycle accident the plaintiffs did have an insurance policy with Nationwide. It was a $25/$50 policy. The plaintiffs’ Kentucky motorcycle car v. motorcycle attorney filed a lawsuit in June of 2012. Id. The plaintiff’s Kentucky car v. motorcycle accident attorney was trying to get Nationwide on the hook via their UIM coverage. Id. The defendant Nationwide argued that the policy did not include the motorcycle in the UIM (uninsured motorist) section.
One party, the defendant was arguing a regular use exclusion, while the plaintiffs were arguing the doctrine of reasonable expectations. The lower court ruled in favor of the defendant. The court held that the language in the policy was very clear. They were plain and unambiguous. Id. The Kentucky car v. motorcycle accident attorney for the plaintiff had a very difficult case.
The Kentucky car v. motorcycle accident attorney did not have a very strong case in light of the fact that the insurance policy was written very clearly. The motorcycle had been repaired prior the accident date, it was available for the regular use of at least the plaintiff’s husband who both owned the motorcycle and had access to the garage where it was housed. Id.
If you have been the subject of a Kentucky car v. motorcycle case, please call and speak to a Kentucky car v. motorcycle accident attorney at the Law Offices of Andrew Alitowski, P.A. at 888-ASK-ANDREW (888-275-2637) or contact us. We are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
If you are injured…Ask Andrew!!!