 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Great Plains Insurance Co. v. Angerman12/19/1991
In this declaratory judgment action instituted by plaintiff, Great Plains Insurance Co. (Great Plains), the trial court granted summary judgment to it after concluding that it was not liable under either of two insurance policies issued by it to pay personal injury protection (PIP) benefits to defendant, Patrick Angerman. Defendant's appeal requires us to consider whether defendant's injuries arose out of the "use" of a motor vehicle under the Colorado Auto Accidents Reparation Act, ยง 10-4-701, et seq., C.R.S. (1987 Repl. Vol. 4A) (the Act). Since we conclude that such a "use" was present in the incident in which defendant was injured, we hold that the statute mandates coverage under both policies at issue. Hence, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Defendant was employed as a warehouseman. In addition to his regular job duties, his employer engaged him to repair and maintain its motor vehicles. It also allowed him, outside of his regular hours of employment, to repair and maintain vehicles of fellow employees. Defendant was paid for this maintenance and repair work, much of which was accomplished on the parking lot owned by his employer, adjacent to the warehouse where he was regularly employed.
Defendant was injured while engaged in inspecting a vehicle owned by a co-employee (Di Paulo) upon which defendant had previously worked. Di Paulo had brought the vehicle to the employer's parking lot, and defendant had placed it on a jack and removed one of its wheels so as to inspect its brakes. While he was inspecting the brakes, the vehicle fell off of the jack on to plaintiff, causing him serious injuries.
Great Plains had issued an automobile liability insurance policy, providing PIP benefits, both to defendant and to Di Paulo. Both policies contained identical provisions. Each provided that Great Plains would pay benefits for "bodily injury . . . caused by an accident arising out of the use or operation of a motor vehicle." (emphasis supplied)
Each policy, however, also contained an exclusion under the terms of which no PIP benefits would be paid for:
bodily injury sustained by any person other than the named insured. . . arising out of conduct occurring within the course of a business of selling, repairing, servicing, storing, parking or otherwise maintaining motor vehicles, unless such conduct occurs off the business premises. (emphasis supplied)
In seeking summary judgment, Great Plains argued that defendant's injuries did not arise out of the "use" of a motor vehicle within the meaning either of the Act or of either policy.
Agreeing with this assertion, the trial court entered summary judgment for Great Plains.
I. The Act
Both parties here agree that a proper determination of the issues raised necessitates a reference to the requirements of the Act. Indeed, both acknowledge that, ultimately, it is the statutory requirements, and not the specific policy provisions, which dictate whether a policy, issued to comply with the Act, provides coverage for PIP benefits. See Trinity Universal Insurance Co. v. Hall, 690 P.2d 227 (Colo. 1984) (policy provision inconsistent with Act is void).
One of the purposes of the Act is to provide compensation to "victims of automobile accidents" by providing "benefits to persons occupying such vehicles" and to other persons "injured in accidents involving such vehicles." Section 10-4-702, C.R.S. (1987 Repl. Vol. 4A).
To accomplish this purpose, the Act mandates the payment of benefits, principally in the form of reimbursement for medical expenses, wage replaceme
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.
|
|