Attaching Tow Chain Results In Insurance Coverage
Attorney
(866) 735-1102 Ext 645
Tags:
None
The North Carolina Court of Appeals has ruled that a man who was killed while attaching a chain to another man’s car was covered by the other man’s underinsured motorist policy.
As a result, the dead man’s family can recover up to $300,000.00 in underinsured motorist benefits from the insurance policy covering the car used for towing.
The deceased was driving his boss’s car when he slid into a ditch. He walked to a nearby house to get help and persuaded the homeowner to help the deceased pull the wrecked car out of the ditch. The homeowner drove the deceased back to the accident scene, parked his car on the road while the deceased connected a chain to the back of his boss’s car and crawled under the homeowner’s car to attach it to the chain. The third person came down the road and struck both cars, killing the deceased who was still underneath the homeowner’s car.
The homeowner’s car was covered by an automobile insurance policy, which provided $300,000.00 in underinsured motorist coverage. Since the negligent party who struck both vehicles had only a $50,000.00 insurance policy, the deceased family made claim against the underinsured motorist policy, which insured the homeowner’s car.
This case illustrates the fact that one does not necessarily have to be the owner of the car, or even the occupant of the car to benefit from automobile liability insurance which covers that car. In this case, the Court of Appeals ruled there was coverage for the deceased family because the deceased, at the time he was killed was either in contact with the homeowner’s vehicle while attaching the chain and thus was “upon” the vehicle, or was in the process of attaching the chain and thus was “getting . . . on” the homeowner’s vehicle. The insurance policy in question covered the named insured, that is, the homeowner, plus any family members and “any other person occupying your covered auto or any other auto occupied by” the homeowner. The Court ruled that even though the deceased was not inside the insured’s car when he was killed, he was still occupying the vehicle at the time of the accident. The policy itself defines the term “occupying” as “in; upon; getting in; on; out or off” the vehicle. The Court’s ruling turned upon the dictionary interpretation of those terms.
If there is any doubt as to whether there is insurance coverage for a person injured in a motor vehicle collision, an attorney should be consulted. Many times, there is coverage when at first it may appear that coverage does not exist.