 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Claim of Hoffacker12/17/2002
lain language of the statute contradicts Hoffacker's interpretation. HRS § 431:10C-304(1) requires that:
in the case of injury arising out of a motor vehicle accident, the insurer shall pay . . . on behalf of . . . persons who sustain accidental harm as a result of the operation, maintenance, or use of the vehicle . . . benefits . . . payable for expenses to that person as a result of the injury[.] (Emphases added.) HRS § 431:10C-103 (Supp. 1997) defines " ccidental harm" as "bodily injury, death, sickness, or disease caused by a motor vehicle accident to a person" and " njury" as "accidental harm not resulting in death." Construing the plain language of the foregoing statutes, HRS § 431:10C-304(1) requires insurers to pay the expenses of those who sustain bodily injury, death, sickness, or disease caused by a motor vehicle accident.
B.
Hoffacker next argues that the no-fault motor vehicle insurance statutes are remedial and should therefore be broadly construed. Hoffacker cites various cases for this proposition. However, even a broad interpretation of the no-fault motor vehicle insurance statutes cannot contradict the plain language of HRS § 431:10C-304(1), which requires a causal connection between a motor vehicle accident and any injury for which a claim for no-fault insurance benefits is made.
C.
Finally, Hoffacker argues that HRS § 431:10C-304(1) should operate with a presumption of causation similar to the presumption in the workers' compensation statute, HRS § 386-85(1) (1993). In support of this proposition, Hoffacker relies on a reference in HRS § 431:10C-308.5 (Supp. 1997) to "workers' compensation schedules[.]" However, it is clear that HRS § 431:10C-308.5 uses the workers' compensation schedules merely to establish limitations on charges and frequency of treatments arising out of motor vehicle accidents. The reference to the workers' compensation schedules in HRS § 431:10C-308.5 was not meant to graft the whole body of workers' compensation law onto the motor vehicle insurance laws. Unlike HRS § 386-85(1), which is entitled "Presumptions" and contains an express legislative allocation of the burden of proof, no similar expression of presumptions exists in the motor vehicle insurance statutes.
Hoffacker cites Mitchell v. State Dep't of Educ., 85 Hawaii 250, 942 P.2d 514 (1997); Chung v. Animal Clinic, Inc., 63 Haw. 642, 636 P.2d 721 (1981); Korsak v. Hawaii Permanente Medical Group, Inc., 94 Hawaii 297, 12 P.3d 1238 (2000). However, these cases do not have anything to do with the Motor Vehicle Insurance laws.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we affirm the Final Judgment entered by the circuit court on May 8, 2001, affirming the Commissioner's Final Order, dated August 4, 2000, that in turn, upheld State Farm's denial of no-fault motor vehicle insurance benefits to Hoffacker.
On the briefs:
Page 1 2 3 4 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|