 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Brucha v. Cruise America12/6/2001
ault Act," one of which is to "remedy issues of inadequate compensation to victims of automobile accidents by requiring minimum no-fault PIP insurance, as well as legal liability coverage." Instead, the court suggested that different treatment for PIP coverage would be appropriate in situations where insurers of the owner and those of the operator dispute whose coverage should be primary. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Hertz Corp., supra, 981 P.2d at 1095 & n.1. Such a question of primary coverage is not the issue here.
Consequently, we hold that plaintiff, as an authorized driver of the motor home and motorcycles, was the named insured under his insurance and rental contract with defendant. Accordingly, the entry of summary judgment for defendant was error.
In light of this holding, we need not address plaintiff's remaining contentions.
The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings on plaintiff's complaint.
JUDGE NEY and JUDGE TAUBMAN concur.
|