I think this ranks as one of the bumbest rulings I have ever read. As a retired police officer, I know that the county should and will take care of all injuries will on duty. While never injuried as bad as this deputy, I did have some injuries that were always paid by the county.
He is entitled to WC benefits but that does not preclude him form pusuing a 3rd party BI claim against the “at fault” party. Being that it was his vehicle and was a stolen vehicle, it should be consider uninsured and he should be able to pursue a UMBI claim under his auto policy. This completely makes sense.
I am sure the cop got Worker’s Comp. The article said the County policy did not provide uninsured cover but said nothing about WC. I assume he got WC and now is looking for something for his pain and suffering.
We should all be shocked at the flawed, and irrational decision of this court in jerkwater, USA. It’s clear the court wants to protect the police department and city and transfer the costs to the private sector. This decision is not only inequitable, it should be contrary to public policy. The personal auto policy contemplated this exposure and has specific exclusions for it.
I agree with the adjuster from New England.
I have a question for Mr. Reed. What would cause you to disparage the state of Maine with your “jerkwater USA” comment? Totally unnecessary and very unprofessional.
Bill C. Simply one’s man’s opinion having lived there for many years, and comparing it to other areas of the country. It has nothing to do with insurance professionalism.
Bill, what exclusion are your refering to? As most personal auto policies either offer UIM/UM or don’t. It’s clear the police vehicle had no UIM/UM coverage so his own auto policy would be secondary in coverage for this loss if he was hit by an uninsured motorist. The police vehicle was “considered” uninsured since it was a stolen vehicle.
As everyone is well aware the world is a dangerous place and the nations police force or first responders are a crucial factor in keeping all of us safe. It’s amazing that the Maine Court sluffs off it’s responsibility to the private sector when one of their own is in need of help. The worst part is the idiotic reasoning behind their decision. Hopefully the state of Maine will step up to the plate and make this right.
Mary B. Covg. follows the vehicle not the driver. Since the vehicle was provided for his regular use and he was in the course of his business, the fact that it was stolen is moot. Coverage excludes both situations period. As for any applicable coverage from the PD, it doesn’t simply stop because it was stolen. This is a bad decision regardless.
No sh*t sherlock but one can still obtain coverage under secondary or tertiary policy for this loss which is what happened here. It’s pretty easy to figure this out and one does not need to be a rocket scientist to find coverage for this loss.
Mary B, you just shot your creditability with your Sherlock comment, dear. Any court can find coverage even if there is none & this is still a crappy decision.
Well when a stupid comment is put out (like bill’s) I will call them on it. If you think that it makes me less credible then that’s YOUR PROBLEM and not mine. The point of my first sentence was that i never got into about insurance following the vehicle and not the driver (even my 5 y/o nephew knows that). I talking about coverage for a loss on multiple policies. As for the courts “finding” coverage for this loss, the courts did no such thing, they only pointed out that the carriers were wrong and pointed out why there is coverage. read an auto policy sometime it might give you some “credibility”.
By this court’s reasoning in this decision, the vehicle my employer provides to me is not one that is furnished for regular use once it is stolen. That just seems assinine to me. It was still provided for regular use, regardless of the fact it was stolen. I agree with several posters that this was a bad decision by the court.
I have always read your comments with interest as they were thought out, but when you stooped to the comment level, I had difficulty with your attitude. You are truly blessed with a 5 yr old nephew that understands insurance. I do read an auto policy on occaision and believe there is an exclusion for work related incidents unless at the employers direction and using one’s own vehicle. This is stll a crappy decision.
Read the auto policy again with respect to the UM.UIM portion of the policy. Presenting a UM.UIM claim on your auto policy is considered a 3rd party claim and not a first party claim so don’t get that mixed up with the work related exclusion as that does not apply here. That exclusion might be used for 1st party coverage (collision, med pay, comp losses, etc.) I don’t see why this is a bad decision.
The guy gets hit by an uninsured motorist, the policy for the work vehicle does not have UIM.UM coverage so he makes a 3rd party claim on his personal auto policy (and if you read this portion of the policy you will note that there is coverage for this loss) and the carrier wrongly denied the claim. Yes, I understand the vehicle that was stolen was his but that doesn’t negate the fact that there was coverage on his own policy.
Oh and sorry for offending everyone with the no sh!t sherlock comment, didn’t realize everyone had such thin skin and no humor.
Are there ‘special’ rules that would allow public entities in Maine NOT to provide workers compensation?
I agree with Rick. He was hurt on the job-why isn’t this work comp?
I think this ranks as one of the bumbest rulings I have ever read. As a retired police officer, I know that the county should and will take care of all injuries will on duty. While never injuried as bad as this deputy, I did have some injuries that were always paid by the county.
Why doesn’t the fire fighters rule apply in this situation? He was on the job at the time correct?
He is entitled to WC benefits but that does not preclude him form pusuing a 3rd party BI claim against the “at fault” party. Being that it was his vehicle and was a stolen vehicle, it should be consider uninsured and he should be able to pursue a UMBI claim under his auto policy. This completely makes sense.
I am sure the cop got Worker’s Comp. The article said the County policy did not provide uninsured cover but said nothing about WC. I assume he got WC and now is looking for something for his pain and suffering.
We should all be shocked at the flawed, and irrational decision of this court in jerkwater, USA. It’s clear the court wants to protect the police department and city and transfer the costs to the private sector. This decision is not only inequitable, it should be contrary to public policy. The personal auto policy contemplated this exposure and has specific exclusions for it.
I agree with the adjuster from New England.
I have a question for Mr. Reed. What would cause you to disparage the state of Maine with your “jerkwater USA” comment? Totally unnecessary and very unprofessional.
Bill C. Simply one’s man’s opinion having lived there for many years, and comparing it to other areas of the country. It has nothing to do with insurance professionalism.
Bill, what exclusion are your refering to? As most personal auto policies either offer UIM/UM or don’t. It’s clear the police vehicle had no UIM/UM coverage so his own auto policy would be secondary in coverage for this loss if he was hit by an uninsured motorist. The police vehicle was “considered” uninsured since it was a stolen vehicle.
As everyone is well aware the world is a dangerous place and the nations police force or first responders are a crucial factor in keeping all of us safe. It’s amazing that the Maine Court sluffs off it’s responsibility to the private sector when one of their own is in need of help. The worst part is the idiotic reasoning behind their decision. Hopefully the state of Maine will step up to the plate and make this right.
Mary B. Covg. follows the vehicle not the driver. Since the vehicle was provided for his regular use and he was in the course of his business, the fact that it was stolen is moot. Coverage excludes both situations period. As for any applicable coverage from the PD, it doesn’t simply stop because it was stolen. This is a bad decision regardless.
No sh*t sherlock but one can still obtain coverage under secondary or tertiary policy for this loss which is what happened here. It’s pretty easy to figure this out and one does not need to be a rocket scientist to find coverage for this loss.
Mary B, you just shot your creditability with your Sherlock comment, dear. Any court can find coverage even if there is none & this is still a crappy decision.
Well when a stupid comment is put out (like bill’s) I will call them on it. If you think that it makes me less credible then that’s YOUR PROBLEM and not mine. The point of my first sentence was that i never got into about insurance following the vehicle and not the driver (even my 5 y/o nephew knows that). I talking about coverage for a loss on multiple policies. As for the courts “finding” coverage for this loss, the courts did no such thing, they only pointed out that the carriers were wrong and pointed out why there is coverage. read an auto policy sometime it might give you some “credibility”.
Can it be?? The same man I knew 15 years ago??
By this court’s reasoning in this decision, the vehicle my employer provides to me is not one that is furnished for regular use once it is stolen. That just seems assinine to me. It was still provided for regular use, regardless of the fact it was stolen. I agree with several posters that this was a bad decision by the court.
I have always read your comments with interest as they were thought out, but when you stooped to the comment level, I had difficulty with your attitude. You are truly blessed with a 5 yr old nephew that understands insurance. I do read an auto policy on occaision and believe there is an exclusion for work related incidents unless at the employers direction and using one’s own vehicle. This is stll a crappy decision.
Read the auto policy again with respect to the UM.UIM portion of the policy. Presenting a UM.UIM claim on your auto policy is considered a 3rd party claim and not a first party claim so don’t get that mixed up with the work related exclusion as that does not apply here. That exclusion might be used for 1st party coverage (collision, med pay, comp losses, etc.) I don’t see why this is a bad decision.
The guy gets hit by an uninsured motorist, the policy for the work vehicle does not have UIM.UM coverage so he makes a 3rd party claim on his personal auto policy (and if you read this portion of the policy you will note that there is coverage for this loss) and the carrier wrongly denied the claim. Yes, I understand the vehicle that was stolen was his but that doesn’t negate the fact that there was coverage on his own policy.
Oh and sorry for offending everyone with the no sh!t sherlock comment, didn’t realize everyone had such thin skin and no humor.
Ah, sarcasm will get you everywhere. Apparently, putting it in context, you were being humorous! Now I see it.