 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Government Employees Insurance Co. v. MFA Mutual Insurance Co.5/10/1990
This case is before us on remand from the Colorado Supreme Court for consideration of issues raised by the parties but not previously addressed by this court.
In this action, defendant, MFA Mutual Insurance Company (MFA), sought reimbursement from plaintiff, Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO), of Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits paid by MFA to its insured for injuries arising out of an accident involving MFA's insureds and GEICO's insured. In an unpublished opinion, we previously upheld the trial court's ruling that MFA was not entitled to a reimbursement from GEICO because MFA's insureds were occupants of the MFA vehicle, and not pedestrians. That judgment has been reversed by the Colorado Supreme Court which determined that the MFA insureds were pedestrians. See MFA Mutual Insurance Co. v. Government Employees Insurance Co., 785 P.2d 128 (Colo. 1990).
On remand we must determine how the payments of PIP benefits made to MFA's insureds are to be allocated between the two insurance companies in light of the Supreme Court's holding that the insureds were pedestrians. MFA contends that the PIP coverage of the GEICO policy is primary and that GEICO) is solely responsible for paying the PIP benefits. GEICO, however, contends that both insurers are responsible on a pro rata basis.
The facts of this case are undisputed. MFA's insured was a passenger in an automobile insured by MFA when the driver stopped on the shoulder of a highway to change a flat tire . The driver, the MFA insured, and another passenger were injured when they were struck from behind by an automobile driven by GEICO's insured. At the time of the accident, all three were leaning into the trunk of the MFA insured automobile trying to remove a spare tire.
Section 10-4-707(1), C.R.S. (1987 Repl. Vol. 4A) provides, in pertinent part, that PIP benefits are applicable to:
"(a) Accidental bodily injury sustained by the named insured when injured in an accident involving any motor vehicle,
(c) Accidental bodily injury . . . sustained by any other person while occupying the described motor vehicle with the consent of the insured or while a pedestrian if injured in an accident involving the described motor vehicle." (emphasis added)
Section 10-4-707(3), C.R.S. (1987 Repl. Vol. 4A) provides, in pertinent part:
"when a person injured is also an insured under a complying policy other than the complying policy insuring the vehicle out of the use of which the accident arose, primary coverage shall be afforded by the policy insuring said vehicle under section 10-4-706;
In the event two or more insurers are liable to pay benefits on the same basis, any insurer paying benefits shall be entitled to an equitable pro rata contribution from such other insurer. (emphasis added)
It is undisputed that the GEICO insured vehicle was involved in the accident, and thus, the determinative question is whether the accident in question involved the MFA insured vehicle.
MFA's insured is entitled to PIP benefits if injured in an accident involving any motor vehicle. Section 14-4-707(1)(a). However, as a pedestrian, MFA's insured is also entitled to PIP benefits under the GEICO policy. Section 10-4-707(1)(c). If the accident involved only the GEICO insured vehicle then, under the first sentence of ยง 10-4-707(3), GEICO, as the insurer of the vehicle out of the use of which the accident arose, would be primarily responsible for payment of the PIP benefits. However, if the accident involved both veh
Page 1 2 Colorado Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|