Insurance judgment for scooter driver hurt in crash reversed

  • Print

A scooter driver who won a trial court ruling when he sued to obtain insurance coverage after a crash lost on appeal Monday when judgment in his favor was reversed and an appellate court instead found for his insurer.

The Indiana Court of Appeals overturned a Marion Superior Court ruling in the scooter driver’s favor in Progressive Southeastern Insurance Company v. Robert Chastain, 20A-CT-876.

Robert Chastain was driving a moped in Indianapolis on Nov. 9, 2018, when he was involved in a crash with a vehicle driven by Rafael Zuniga. Zuniga’s insurer informed Chastain’s counsel that it would tender the policy limit of $25,000, but Progressive denied underinsured bodily injury coverage.

The appellate panel noted Chastain had coverage for three vehicles under his Progressive policy, but not for the scooter. Chastain sued Progressive seeking a declaratory judgment regarding benefits of the policy’s underinsured motorist coverage, and Progressive filed a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment that it owed no coverage under the policy.

The Marion Superior Court granted summary judgment to Chastain, finding among other things that the terms “vehicle” and “motor vehicle” in the UIM portion of his policy were ambiguous and Progressive was obligated to cover Chastain and compensate him for his injuries.

The COA reversed Monday.

“We conclude that the term ‘motor vehicle’ under the Policy is unambiguous,” Judge Elaine Brown wrote for the panel. “The designated evidence reveals that the 2017 Bashan Scooter was a motor vehicle owned by or available for Chastain’s regular use. Accordingly, underinsured motorist coverage was excluded under Part III of the Policy which states that “[c]overage under this Part III will not apply: 1. to bodily injury sustained by any person while using or occupying … a motor vehicle that is owned by or available for the regular use of you, a relative or a rated resident.

“For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the trial court’s denial of Progressive’s motion for summary judgment and grant of Chastain’s motion for summary judgment,” the COA concluded.

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets on
{{ count_down }}