Pennsylvania Motorcyclist Rule Upheld

A Pennsylvania court has ruled that an exclusion in underinsured motorist coverage for injuries incurred while on a motorcycle applies to motorcyclists injured after being thrown off their bikes.

An underinsured motorist coverage from Allstate contained an exclusion for injuries sustained while on a motorcycle. The court was asked if the exclusion still applies when the driver is injured after being thrown “off” the motorcycle after colliding with a car.

The motorcyclist’s lawyer argued that technically the driver was not on his motorcycle when the injuries occurred, so the exclusion shouldn’t apply.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court in Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Co. v. Hymes disagreed with that argument and sided with Allstate. In its Sept. 13 opinion, the court stated that “recovery for underinsured benefits is properly excluded under the pertinent policy provision” because the injuries, even though they may have taken place off the motorcycle, are still the direct result stemming from the motorcyclist operating the vehicle.

The case involves Jacob Hymes who, while driving his Harley Davidson, was in an accident with a Chevrolet operated by Robert Meyer. Hymes suffered serious injuries after being thrown from his motorcycle and into the windshield and onto the ground some 20 feet away from the point of impact, according to court documents. Meyer, the driver of Chevrolet, was determined to be at fault for the accident but his liability insurance proved to be insufficient to fully compensate Hymes for his injuries.

Hymes did not buy underinsured motorist coverage from his primary insurer, GEICO. So he turned to his parents’ policy with Allstate. Allstate denied Hymes’ claim for underinsured motorist coverage, relying on the policy’s “household exclusion,” which excluded underinsured motorist coverage to “anyone while in, or, getting into or out of or when struck by a motor vehicle owned or leased by you or a resident relative which is not insured for underinsured motorist coverage under this policy.”

The trial court agreed with Allstate and determined that the “clear, unambiguous language of the ‘household exclusion’ bars [Hymes’] claim.”

The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed, stating, “Words of ‘common usage’ in an insurance policy are to be construed in their natural, plain, and ordinary sense.”

The court said it saw no plausible argument that the “injuries complained of here are not the direct result of [the driver’s] operation of his motorcycle while ‘on’ it.”

Topics Auto Pennsylvania