Statute Requires Actual Contact with Vehicle to Collect Basic Reparation Benefits in Kentucky
The state of Kentucky has, by statute, created a Basic Reparation Benefits provision that allows up to $10,000 in payments if a person is injured in an automobile accident. To collect the accident must be due to the use or operation of an autombilie.
In Mark Micatrotto v. Grange Mutual Casualty Company, NO. 2017-CA-000320-MR, Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals (July 20, 2018) Mark Micatrotto appealed an order of the Fayette Circuit Court granting summary judgment in favor of Grange Mutual Casualty Company and dismissing Micatrotto’s complaint.
Micatrotto was employed by Motorvation Motor Cars as a vehicle salesman on its car lot in Lexington, Kentucky. On or about August 1, 2014, while at work on the car lot, Micatrotto alleges he had to jump out of the path of an automobile that was backing up on the lot. As a result, he tripped on the curb and suffered a physical injury. The automobile was apparently being driven by an unknown customer with an unidentified salesperson riding as a passenger. Micatrotto conceded that the automobile made no physical contact with him. Micatrotto sought payment of Basic Reparation Benefits (BRB) from Grange Mutual who refused to pay BRB benefits.
Micatrotto sued Grange Mutual. He alleged that Grange Mutual improperly denied payment of BRB and sought to recover $10,000, representing the limit of BRB coverage provided under Motorvation insurance policy.
Grange Mutual answered and subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment. In the motion, Grange Mutual argued that Micatrotto was not entitled to BRB. Grange Mutual maintained that as a pedestrian Micatrotto was only entitled to BRB if he was physically struck by a motor vehicle per Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 304.39-050(1). As it was uncontroverted that Micatrotto was not physically struck by the automobile, Grange Mutual asserted that Micatrotto was plainly not entitled to BRB.
The circuit court granted Grange Mutual’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Micatrotto’s complaint.
Micatrotto contends that the circuit court erroneously rendered summary judgment. Specifically, Micatrotto argues that he was entitled to BRB because his injury was caused by the use of an automobile. And, he asserts that there is no statutory requirement of physical contact with an automobile to be entitled to BRB as a pedestrian.
When interpreting a statute, courts are bound to give terms their usual and customary meaning. If a term has been expressly defined by legislative enactment, such definition must be utilized by the court.
The statute broadly declares that any person who suffered an injury “arising out of maintenance or use of a motor vehicle” is entitled to BRB if the accident occurred in Kentucky. The phrase “use of a motor vehicle” is defined as any “utilization” of a motor vehicle “including occupying, entering into, and alighting from it.” KRS 304.39-050(1) specifies that “if the injured person is a pedestrian, the security covering the vehicle which struck such pedestrian” is responsible for BRB.
At the time of Micatrotto’s injury, it is clear Micatrotto was not occupying, entering, riding, driving, or alighting from a motor vehicle. Rather, under the uncontroverted facts, Micatrotto was a pedestrian. As a pedestrian, Micatrotto is entitled to BRB from the insurance carrier of the motor vehicle that “struck” him. However, Micatrotto was not struck by the automobile; rather, his injuries were due solely to his efforts to escape from the path of the automobile. The automobile never made physical contact with Micatrotto.
A pedestrian must be struck by a motor vehicle in order to be entitled to BRB. As Micatrotto was not struck by the automobile, he is not entitled to BRB as a pedestrian.
Insurance is a contract. The contract, as the court noted, allowed the insured to receive benefits if struck by an automobile. Since Micatortto was never contacted by an automobile he was not entitled the to Basic Reparation Benefits. Since he was employed at the time of the injury he was – although the court did not discuss it – to workers’ compensation benefits. I can only wonder why this $10,000 claim went to a trial and appellate court.
© 2018 – Barry Zalma
This article, and all of the blog posts on this site, digest and summarize cases published by courts of the various states and the United States. The court decisions have been modified from the actual language of the court decisions, were condensed for ease of reading, and convey the opinions of the author regarding each case.
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to service as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders. He also serves as an arbitrator or mediator for insurance related disputes. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims handling lawyer and more than 50 years in the insurance business. He is available at http://www.zalma.com and firstname.lastname@example.org.
Mr. Zalma is the first recipient of the first annual Claims Magazine/ACE Legend Award.
Books from Full Court Press
Insurance Law Deskbook: Learn the insurance basics that are essential to every civil practitioner. The Insurance Law Deskbook is intended to help law students, practitioners, insurance lawyers, professional claims personnel, insured persons, and anyone else involved in insurance. The book, published for the first time under Full Court Press, includes the full texts or digests of insurance-related decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. District Courts of Appeal, state appellate courts, and foreign courts that have molded the American insurance law, as well as vital explanatory chapters, historical context, form letters, and more.
California Insurance Law Deskbook: California has long led the way when it comes to insurance jurisprudence in the United States, and few know more about California insurance law than Barry Zalma. The California Insurance Law Deskbook is intended to help law students, practitioners, insurance lawyers, professional claims personnel, insured persons, and anyone else involved in insurance. Similar to Barry Zalma’s general Insurance Law Deskbook, this title focuses on the state where the author has long resided and practiced as an expert in California law. The book, published for the first time under Full Court Press, includes the full texts or digests of insurance-related decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. District Courts of Appeal, and California appellate courts, as well as vital explanatory chapters and historical context.
Insurance Bad Faith and Punitive Damages Deskbook: Understand the relationship between insurance, the tort of bad faith, and why punitive damages are awarded to punish insurers. Previously, a person suing an insurance company in the United States could only recover contract damages, but when the tort of bad faith was created by the courts contract law was enormously affected, allowing insureds to sue insurers for both contract and tort damages, including punitive damages. Read a thoughtful analysis of how punitive damages apply in the United States to insurance bad faith suits, and why some states allow judges and juries to award punitive damages against insurers in civil litigation.
Mr. Zalma’s books available as Kindle books or paperbacks at Amazon.com can be reached at http://zalma.com/zalma-books/
Mr. Zalma’s reports can be found on Tumbler at https://www.tumblr.com/search/bzalma on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/barry.zalma and you can follow him on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma
The author and publisher disclaim any liability, loss, or risk incurred as a consequence, directly or indirectly, of the use and application of any of the contents of this blog. The information provided is not a substitute for the advice of a competent insurance, legal, or other professional. The Information provided at this site should not be relied on as legal advice. Legal advice cannot be given without full consideration of all relevant information relating to an individual situation.