 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lamb v. Geico General Insurance Co.11/7/2002
JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS
Dailey and Erickson, JJ., concur
Defendant, GEICO General Insurance Company, appeals the trial court judgment declaring that plaintiff, June Lamb, was entitled to personal injury protection (PIP) coverage under her automobile insurance policy issued by defendant. We reverse and remand with directions.
Plaintiff was injured when the motorcycle she was driving collided with a car. At the time of the accident, plaintiff was the named insured under two insurance policies issued by defendant. The first, a motorcycle insurance policy, provided liability and property damage coverage, but not PIP coverage. The second, an automobile insurance policy covering plaintiff's car, provided PIP coverage, but expressly excluded coverage for bodily injury resulting from the use or operation of a motor vehicle owned by the insured person but not insured under the policy.
After defendant denied plaintiff's claim for PIP benefits, plaintiff brought this action, seeking PIP benefits, additional benefits for property damage under her motorcycle policy, and damages for defendant's asserted bad faith breach of contract. The trial court denied defendant's motion to dismiss the claim for PIP benefits and entered a declaratory judgment that, notwithstanding the policy exclusion, plaintiff was entitled to PIP coverage under her automobile insurance policy in light of DeHerrera v. Sentry Insurance Co., 30 P.3d 167 (Colo. 2001). The judgment was certified as final pursuant to C.R.C.P. 54(b).
Defendant contends on appeal that the Colorado Auto Accident Reparations Act, § 10-4-701, et seq., C.R.S. 2002 (No-Fault Act), does not require PIP coverage for owner-operators of street motorcycles and that the trial court erred in relying on DeHerrera for a contrary conclusion. We agree.
The interpretation of a statute is a question of law, which we review de novo. See United Airlines, Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 993 P.2d 1152 (Colo. 2000); Fazio v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., ___ P.3d ___ (Colo. App. No. 01CA0601, Mar. 28, 2002).
When construing a statute, we must determine and give effect to the intent of the General Assembly. To do so, we look first to the plain language of the statute. Because it is presumed the General Assembly intends a just and reasonable result when it enacts a statute, a statutory construction that leads to an absurd result will not be followed. Fazio v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., supra.
The No-Fault Act requires insurance carriers to provide certain types of coverage, including, as pertinent here, PIP coverage applicable to:
(a) Accidental bodily injury sustained by the named insured when injured in an accident involving any motor vehicle, regardless of whether the accident occurs in this state or in any other jurisdiction, except where the injury is the result of the use or operation of the named insured's own motor vehicle not actually covered under the terms of [the No- Fault Act];
(b) Accidental bodily injury sustained by a relative of the named insured under the circumstances described in paragraph (a) of this subsection (1) . . . except where the relative is injured as a result of the use or operation of his own motor vehicle not actually covered under the terms of [the No-Fault Act]. Section 10-4-707(1), C.R.S. 2002 (emphasis added).
As used elsewhere in the No-Fault Act, "motor vehicle" generally does not include a motorcycle. See § 10-4-703(7), C.R.S. 2002 ( Motor vehicle means any vehicle of a type required to be registered and licensed under the laws of this state and which is designed to be propelle
Page 1 2 3 4 Colorado Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|