 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Brucha v. Cruise America12/6/2001
utual Insurance Co., 961 P.2d 550 (Colo. App. 1998). Motorcycles are included in the definition of vehicles for purposes of that section. See § 10-4-707(2), C.R.S. 2001' see also Deherrera v. Sentry Insurance Co., 30 P.3d 167 (Colo. 2001).
Thus, as the parties agree, the insurance and rental contract was an insurance contract for purposes of the No-Fault Act. The parties also agree that, if plaintiff was the named insured on the insurance and rental contract for the motor home, he is entitled to PIP coverage for the expenses he incurred in the motorcycle accident.
The trial court relied on Nelson v. Strode Motors, Inc., 198 Colo. 366, 600 P.2d 74 (1979), in determining that plaintiff was not a named insured. In Nelson, the plaintiff was injured in a pedestrian accident that did not involve his rented vehicle. He submitted a claim to the rental company, contending he was the named insured under the automobile rental contract and therefore was entitled to PIP benefits. The supreme court rejected this argument, holding that the policy insured the plaintiff for bodily injuries and property damage incurred only while he was using the rented automobile.
Later, a division of this court relied on Nelson in reasoning that, because an automobile rental contract was a bailment, not an insurance contract, the rental company was not required to provide uninsured motorist coverage. The division held that the rental company was the named insured. Passamano v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 835 P.2d 514 (Colo. App. 1991). However, the supreme court rejected this analysis and determined that the rental contract was not merely a bailment but was also a contract of insurance. Therefore, it held, the rental agency was an insurer, and the plaintiff was the named insured for purposes of Colo. Sess. Laws 1983, ch. 92, § 10-4-609(1) at 454, which required insurers to offer uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. Passamano v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 882 P.2d 1312 (Colo. 1994).
While the General Assembly has superseded the Passamano decision by amending § 10-4-609(1), to provide that rental agencies are not required to provide customers the opportunity to purchase or reject optional uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage, Colo. Sess. Laws 1995, ch. 51, § 10-4-609(1)(b) at 143, the issue here concerns PIP coverage, which is compulsory. Section 10-4-705, C.R.S. 2001; see Ortiz v. Hawkeye-Security Insurance Co., 971 P.2d 233 (Colo. App. 1998). Thus, the Passamano court's holding that the named "authorized driver" in the rental contract is the "named insured" remains viable.
This conclusion is buttressed by the decision in Thompson v. Budget Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc., supra. There, a division of this court concluded the renter was entitled to accept or reject supplemental PIP coverage under § 10-4-710(2)(a), C.R.S. 2001, an option exclusively reserved to the named insured.
Defendant urges us to limit Passamano's holding that a renter is the named insured to situations involving uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. However, that distinction was rejected by the division in Thompson, which reasoned that the purpose of both uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage and PIP coverage is to "ensure adequate compensation for persons injured in car accidents." Thompson v. Budget Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc., supra, 940 P.2d at 991.
Moreover, Colorado courts have generally rejected the proposition that different rules should apply to PIP coverage. The supreme court in Metropolitan Property & Casualty refused to distinguish PIP coverage from liability coverage regarding permissive use, holding that the distinction "would do violence to the broad purposes of the No-F
Page 1 2 3 Colorado Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|