Roy Zipris
May 26th 05, 11:58 AM
Over the past several years, there has been the occasional thread about
motor vehicle insurance, limited tort options, and accidents while
cycling. It was generally understood here in Pennsylvania that if you
had chosen the limited tort option on your car insurance, your recovery
was limited if injured in an accident while you were cycling.
For those of us who ride in PA, the following may be of interest. The
PA Supreme Court just ruled, unanimously, that the limited tort option
does not apply to an innocent pedestrian even if the pedestrian has
chosen the limited tort option on her car insurance policy. The Court
ruled that, both because of the plain language of the statute and
public policy reasons, the limitation only applies to drivers and
passengers of motor vehicles.
Although the opinion does not discuss bicycles, its reasoning and the
court's unanimity suggest that a cyclist should and ultimately would
(when the right case comes along) be treated like a pedestrian, not a
motor vehicle driver. --Roy Zipris, Philadelphia
motor vehicle insurance, limited tort options, and accidents while
cycling. It was generally understood here in Pennsylvania that if you
had chosen the limited tort option on your car insurance, your recovery
was limited if injured in an accident while you were cycling.
For those of us who ride in PA, the following may be of interest. The
PA Supreme Court just ruled, unanimously, that the limited tort option
does not apply to an innocent pedestrian even if the pedestrian has
chosen the limited tort option on her car insurance policy. The Court
ruled that, both because of the plain language of the statute and
public policy reasons, the limitation only applies to drivers and
passengers of motor vehicles.
Although the opinion does not discuss bicycles, its reasoning and the
court's unanimity suggest that a cyclist should and ultimately would
(when the right case comes along) be treated like a pedestrian, not a
motor vehicle driver. --Roy Zipris, Philadelphia