 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Burr v. Pemco Mutual Insurance Co.8/29/2005
enactment of separate wrongful death and survival statutes does not reflect a legislative policy decision that non-derivative claims must be treated as separate and distinct for insurance coverage purposes. Burr further contends Progressive's definition violates public policy because it contravenes the objective of fully compensating innocent victims of automobile accidents. But Burr relies upon cases involving policies that excluded an entire class of persons from coverage. See Mendoza, 140 Wn.2d at 662 (felony exclusion triggered by extent of injured person's damages); Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. Co. v. Wiscomb, 97 Wn.2d 203, 643 P.2d 441 (1982) (household or family member exclusion); Tissell v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 115 Wn.2d 107, 795 P.2d 126 (1990) (family member exclusion). The Progressive policy merely limits the amount the company will pay for all damages that result from direct injury to one person. The policy does not exclude a particular class of persons from recovery. Had the driver carried higher policy limits, Burr's claim might well have been covered. In essence, this is a limits argument, not a coverage argument. Progressive paid its limits.
We affirm the decision of the trial court.
Page 1 2 3 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|