In January of 2010, the Kentucky Court of Appeals heard a case involving a motorcycle accident case. (See Cox v. Progressive Northern Insurance Company, 2010 WL 199572 (Ky.App.)). In Cox, the facts are as follows.
Mr. Cox on June 25, 2008 took out a Progressive policy for his motorcycle. Id. As part of the application, Mr. Cox rejected the Kentucky no-fault, which expressly rejected basic PIP coverage. Id. On September 23, 2008, Mr. Cox was involved in a motorcycle accident and was injured. Id. He demanded that Progressive pay him Pedestrian PIP benefits, which Progressive denied. Id. Thus, Mr. Cox sued alleging that he was nettled to Pedestrian PIP benefits under the insurance policy. Id. The trial court dismissed his case. Id. Thus, Mr. Cox appealed this motorcycle accident case.
This Appellate Court sustained the trial court’s ruling. Id. “The entitlement to reparation benefits under the policy is a legal conclusion drawn from the interpretation of a contract, which is purely a matter of law to be decided by the court. (cites omitted). Id. The Appellate Court held that the language of the policy was unambiguous. Id. Mr. Cox argued that he was entitled to Pedestrian PIP. Id. It stated in part that “if you pay the premium for Basic Personal Injury Protection, Passenger Personal Injury Protection, Additional Personal Injury Protection, we will pay for reasonable and necessary covered expenses incurred because of bodily injury sustained by an insured person in an accident arising out of the operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle. If the covered motorcycle is a two or three wheeled motorcycle designed for operation principally upon public roads, Pedestrian Personal Injury Protection will be shown upon the declarations page and will apply even if you or a relative rejected the limitation upon torts rights under the Kentucky Motor Vehicle Reparations Act and did not purchase Basic Personal Injury Protection, Additional Personal Injury protection, or Passenger Injury Protection.” Id.
The Appellate Court agreed with the trial court that Mr. Cox expressly rejected basic PIP benefits. Id. Mr. Cox did not pay any premiums for basic PIP benefits. Id. Mr. Cox did not purchase the Pedestrian PIP. Id. Further, Mr. Cox did not strike a pedestrian nor was he himself a pedestrian at the time of the accident. Id. “It is patently unreasonable to interpret the policy so that the purchase of Pedestrian Personal Injury Protection entitles Cox to reparation benefits when he expressly rejected basic PIP and the accident did not involve a pedestrian.” Id.
If you have been the subject of a Louisville motorcycle accident case, please call and speak to a Louisville motorcycle accident lawyer 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!!!