 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Colby v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co.6/15/1995
Defendant, Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., appeals from a summary judgment determining that plaintiff, R.W. Colby, as guardian for Dean L. Colby, an incapacitated adult, was entitled to recover additional rehabilitation benefits for his ward. We reverse.
Dean Colby suffered serious injuries in a rollover automobile accident in 1993 as a passenger in a vehicle insured by defendant. Defendant paid the policy limits for all of the statutorily mandated personal injury protection coverages including $50,000 for rehabilitation benefits.
Plaintiff brought a declaratory judgment action seeking a determination that defendant's policy failed to comply with the version of § 10-4-706(1)(c)(II), C.R.S. (1987 Repl. Vol. 4A) of the No-Fault Act then in effect. Specifically, plaintiff asserted that the statute required payment of additional rehabilitation benefits under the policy if evidence established that $50,000 was inadequate.
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court interpreted § 10-4-706(1)(c)(II), C.R.S. (1987 Repl. Vol. 4A) as imposing no absolute time or dollar limitation on rehabilitation benefits. Based upon the declared purpose of the Act to compensate fully victims of automobile accidents, the court viewed this construction of the statute as consistent with the provisions of § 10-4-710, C.R.S. (1987 Repl. Vol. 4A), which authorized an insurance carrier the option of providing additional coverage in No-Fault policies.
As pertinent here, § 10-4-706 previously provided:
(1) Subject to the limitations and exclusions authorized by this part 7, the minimum coverages required for compliance with this part 7 are as follows:
(c)(I)(A) Compensation without regard to fault for payment of the cost of rehabilitation procedures or treatment and rehabilitative occupational training necessary because of bodily injury arising out of the use or operation of a motor vehicle. . . .
(II) An insurer obligated to provide direct benefits under this section shall be presumed to have complied with the provision for rehabilitation when the value of rehabilitation services or treatment provided under paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of this section shall have reached fifty thousand dollars within five years after an accident involving a motor vehicle. (emphasis added)
With reference to additional coverage, § 10-4-710 provided:
(1) Nothing in this Part 7 shall be construed to prohibit the issuance of policies providing coverages more extensive than the minimum coverages required under this part 7
(2)(a) Every insurer shall offer for inclusion in a complying policy, in addition to the coverages described in section 10-4-706, at the option of the named insured:
[additional benefits]
(II)(b) A complying policy may provide that all benefits set forth in section
10-4-706(1)(b) to (1)(e) and in this section are subject to an aggregate limit of one hundred thousand dollars payable on account of injury to or death of any one person as a result of any one accident arising out of the use or operation of a motor vehicle. (emphasis added)
Defendant contends that the trial court erred in its interpretation of the quoted statutes. Specifically, defendant contends that if, as here, $50,000 in rehabilitation expenses has been paid, the policy in question complies with the minimum required coverage under the No-Fault Act and that plaintiff may not seek additional benefits. We agree.
We recognize,
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.
|
|