In Hahn v. GEICO Choice Insurance Co., 420 P.3d 1160 (Alaska 2018), the Alaska Supreme Court held that UIM benefits did not extend to a person falling on an insured vehicle after it struck him. In this case, the insured was sitting on his motorcycle while stopped at a traffic signal. The tortfeasor’s vehicle struck the insured’s motorcycle, throwing the insured backward onto the tortfeasor’s vehicle’s hood, windshield, and roof. The motorcyclist then landed on the pavement. Focusing on the “upon” language in the GEICO UIM coverage, the motorcyclist attempted to argue that he was an occupant of the tortfeasor’s vehicle which was insured by GEICO. The Alaska Supreme Court found this argument to be unreasonable. The Court found that the policy insured covered persons who were actually occupying the vehicle, and not persons who happened to be “upon” the insured vehicle. According to the Court, the concept of “occupying” meant “in, upon, getting into, or getting out of” in accordance with the policy’s language. When the phrase was read in context rather than in isolation, the term “upon” was a subset of “occupying.” The Court found that no reasonable person would come to the conclusion that the fortuity of where a person’s body bounced enroute to being thrown to the pavement allowed for UIM coverage attachment.
A Pedestrian’s Being Struck By A Motor Vehicle Did Not Give Rise To “Occupancy” During The Sequence In Which The Pedestrian Was In Physical Contact With The Vehicle
On Behalf of Steven Plitt, Insurance Expert | Jan 2, 2019 | Injuries
Categories
- Bad Faith (28)
- Damage Coverage (3)
- Discharged Attorney (1)
- Firm News (61)
- Injuries (15)
- Insurance Law (147)
- Liability (16)
- Medical Malpractice (5)
- Volunteer Defense (1)
Archives
- April 2022 (4)
- March 2022 (5)
- February 2022 (2)
- December 2021 (4)
- November 2021 (2)
- September 2021 (4)
- August 2021 (2)
- July 2021 (4)
- June 2021 (4)
- May 2021 (3)
- April 2021 (5)
- March 2021 (2)
- February 2021 (3)
- January 2021 (4)
- December 2020 (5)
- November 2020 (3)
- October 2020 (4)
- September 2020 (3)
- August 2020 (4)
- July 2020 (4)
- June 2020 (4)
- May 2020 (4)
- April 2020 (5)
- March 2020 (2)
- February 2020 (3)
- January 2020 (4)
- December 2019 (3)
- November 2019 (3)
- October 2019 (4)
- September 2019 (4)
- August 2019 (3)
- July 2019 (1)
- June 2019 (4)
- May 2019 (5)
- April 2019 (3)
- March 2019 (3)
- February 2019 (4)
- January 2019 (3)
- December 2018 (3)
- November 2018 (4)
- October 2018 (5)
- September 2018 (4)
- August 2018 (3)
- July 2018 (4)
- June 2018 (4)
- May 2018 (5)
- April 2018 (4)
- March 2018 (5)
- February 2018 (4)
- January 2018 (4)
- December 2017 (3)
- November 2017 (4)
- October 2017 (4)
- September 2017 (4)
- August 2017 (4)
- July 2017 (4)
- June 2017 (5)
- May 2017 (4)
- April 2017 (4)
- March 2017 (5)
- February 2017 (2)
- January 2017 (1)
- December 2016 (5)
- November 2016 (4)
- October 2016 (4)
- September 2016 (4)
- August 2016 (5)
- July 2016 (4)
- June 2016 (1)
Recent Posts
- DEFENSE COSTS REIMBURSEMENT CONSIDERED BY NEVADA COURT
- “SEWERAGE” NOT REQUIRED TO INVOKE BACK-UP AND OVERFLOW FROM SEWER EXCLUSION
- TENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FINDS THAT INSURANCE POLICY’S APPRAISAL CLAUSE ALLOWS CAUSATION DETERMINATIONS
- TO ESTABLISH BAD FAITH FAILURE TO SETTLE, IN CALIFORNIA, PLAINTIFF MUST PROVE BOTH THAT A REASONABLE SETTLEMENT DEMAND WAS MADE, IN ADDITION TO UNREASONABLE CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE INSURER
Learn More About Steven Plitt, Insurance Expert
- Teaching
- Education and Scholastic Activities
- Judicial Law Clerkships, Internships, Boards and Certifications
- American Law Institute
- American College of Coverage and Extracontractual Counsel
- Arizona Insurance Institute
- Professional Recognition
- Books Published
- Published Case Reviews
- Academic Journals and Law Reviews
- Other Professional Publications
- Speaker/Presentations
- Professional Activities

