According to the Opinion , the person at issue had
been a foster child but, ten days before the subject accident, his status as a
"dependent child" had been terminated because he was over the age of
18 and was not enrolled in college.
Under the policy, a 'Family member' was defined as “a person related to you by
blood, marriage or adoption who is a resident of your household. This
includes a ward or foster child.”
The terms 'ward'
and 'foster child' were not defined in the policy.
Reviewing the
record before it, the Superior Court ruled that the person at issue was indeed
a 'ward' at the time of the crash.
The court also
ruled that, in any event, the term 'ward' as used in an insurance contract with
no further definition is an ambiguous term as it is a term susceptible to more
than one interpretation.
The court followed
the well-settled rule that ambiguous terms in auto insurance policies are to be
construed in favor of the insured.The Superior Court in Rourke also found that there was a genuine issue of material fact to be decided by the jury on the question of whether or not the injured insured party had a reasonable expectation of coverage under the circumstances.
Accordingly,
coverage was afforded to the foster child under the policy.
Anyone wishing to
review this decision may click HERE.
I send thanks to
Attorney Matthew S. Crosby of the Harrisburg, PA office of Handler, Henning
& Rosenberg LLP (Attorney Rosenberg of that office represented the injured
party insured), as well as to Attorney Scott Cooper of the Harrisburg, PA law
firm of Schmidt Kramer for bringing this case to my attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.