 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lamb v. Geico General Insurance Co.11/7/2002
d by an engine or motor; except that this term does not include motorcycles . . . ."). However, motorcycles are included within the term "motor vehicle" as it is used in § 10-4-707(1)(a) & (b), quoted above. Section 10-4-707(2), C.R.S. 2002, states:
The definition of "motor vehicle" set forth in section 10-4-703(7) shall not apply with respect to [§ 10-4-707(1)(a) & (b)]. For purposes of said paragraphs (a) and (b), "motor vehicle" means any motor vehicle required to be registered and licensed for operation on the public highways of this state or any other jurisdiction.
Thus, in accordance with the plain language of these provisions, the PIP coverage mandated under the No-Fault Act does not apply to injuries resulting from the insured's use of his or her own motor vehicle -- including a motorcycle that is required to be registered and licensed for use on public highways -- if such vehicle is not actually covered under the terms of the No-Fault Act.
In Thompson v. Dairyland Insurance Co., 618 P.2d 736 (Colo. App. 1980), a division of this court construed this statutory language as excluding street motorcycles from mandatory PIP coverage. In Thompson, as in this case, the insured contended that the No-Fault Act required his insurer to provide PIP coverage for injuries he received when his street motorcycle was involved in an accident with another vehicle. The division disagreed. It reasoned that, because the plaintiff's motorcycle was undisputedly required to be registered and licensed for operation on public highways and thus was not within the general No- Fault Act definition of "motor vehicle" in § 10-4-703(7), it was not "actually covered" under the terms of the No-Fault Act for purposes of the exclusion in § 10-4-707(1)(a). Thompson, supra, 618 P.2d at 737.
We agree with the analysis in Thompson and conclude, as did the Thompson division, that § 10-4-707(1)(a) excludes street motorcycles from mandatory PIP coverage. This construction accords not only with the plain language of § 10-4-707(1)(a) but also with the overall statutory scheme, which reflects an intent to limit mandatory PIP coverage for street motorcycles. See § 10-4-705(3), C.R.S. 2002 (limiting compulsory coverage for motorcycles to liability coverage); Fazio v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., supra (insurer not required by No-Fault Act to offer enhanced PIP coverage to motorcycle owners where, under § 10-4-705(3), no PIP coverage at all is required for motorcycles); Brucha v. Cruise America, Inc., 53 P.3d 700, 701 (Colo. App. 2001)(noting in dictum that, under § 10-4-705(3), minimum coverage for motorcycles does not include PIP coverage; "Therefore, unless a motorcycle owner specifically purchases PIP coverage, he or she cannot recover PIP benefits for an injury incurred while operating his or her own motorcycle."); Martinez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 961 P.2d 531 (Colo. App. 1997)(under § 10-4-707(1)(b), PIP benefits not available under parents' automobile insurance policy for son injured while operating his own motorcycle).
We reject plaintiff's contention that the statutory exceptions for motor vehicles "not actually covered under the terms of" the No-Fault Act are inapplicable because she had liability coverage for her motorcycle. Liability coverage is required for all motorcycles under the No-Fault Act. See § 10-4-705(3). Thus, under plaintiff's interpretation, the PIP coverage referenced in § 10-4-707(1)(a) & (b) would be available for motorcycles. Such an interpretation would produce an absurd result, in that it would be directly contrary to the express exclusion of motorcycles from mandatory PIP coverage in § 10-4- 705(3). See Travelers Indem. Co. v. Barnes, 191 Colo. 278, 552
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.
|
|