 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Heartfield v. Transit Management of Tucson Inc.12/17/1991
comprehensive scheme, A.R.S. § 20-259.01, to provide compensation to insureds who are injured as a result of the negligent actions of uninsured motorists and, therefore, it follows that this statutory scheme must apply to the Sun Tran buses. A reading of A.R.S. §§ 28-1221 and 28-1233(D) leads to the contrary conclusion. In addition, A.R.S. § 20-259.01 governs insurance policies issued by insurers and is not applicable.
Appellant argues that there is an inherent inconsistency between the provisions of A.R.S. § 28-1221 and the requirement that privately-owned buses carry uninsured motorist coverage. See A.R.S. § 28-1233(A)(2)(a). As long as the basis for differing legislative classifications is reasonable, there is no constitutional violation. State v. Arnett, 119 Ariz. 38, 579 P.2d 542 (1978). Here, the legislature chose to ensure by statute the financial responsibility of private persons or organizations transporting passengers. It is a rational distinction to treat governmental units differently.
Appellant also argues that the trial court incorrectly interpreted A.R.S. § 28-1221 in light of City of Phoenix v. Lane, 76 Ariz. 240, 263 P.2d 302 (1953), rev'd on other grounds, Everett v. State, 88 Ariz. 293, 356 P.2d 394 (1960), which, appellant argues, interpreted a predecessor statute as exempting only drivers of government vehicles from the financial responsibility laws. We disagree. Lane clearly holds that both the government entity and its drivers are exempt. Appellant also argues that governmental immunity was abolished in Stone v. Arizona Highway Comm'n, 93 Ariz. 384, 381 P.2d 107 (1963). However, § 28-1221 has been amended several times subsequent to the Stone decision, and the legislature has not seen fit to remove the exemption for government vehicles.
Finally, appellant argues that public policy considerations mandate that governmental entities provide uninsured motorist coverage. The short answer to this argument is that public policy is set by the legislature and that body has clearly and unequivocally exempted government vehicles from the provisions of the SRA.
We need not address appellant's argument concerning the City of Tucson's excess insurer as that company has never been made a party to this action.
Affirmed.
|