No UIM Coverage for Gunshot Wounds From High Speed Police Chase

In the case of Eberhardinger v. City of York and State Farm, No. 1:16-cv-2481 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 18, 2018 Connor, C.J.), the court addressed the elements of a UIM claim. More specifically, the court reaffirmed the rule that a Plaintiff’s alleged injuries in a UIM claim must have a causal connection to the use of a motor vehicle.  

In this matter, the passenger Plaintiff was struck by bullets fired by the police during a high speed vehicle chase.  The Plaintiff passenger, who was the owner of the vehicle involved in the high speed chase, sought PIP and UIM benefits from her policy.  

The court held that the injuries to the Plaintiff passenger from being shot did not arise out of the “maintenance or use of a motor vehicle” for purposes of recovering UIM benefits under the policy.   These injuries were found to be not vehicle-caused injuries, but rather, were the direct consequence of an intentional intervening act of a third party, with only incidental involvement of the motor vehicle.  

The court additionally noted that, in any event, even if causation could be shown, the UIM coverage under the policy excluded injuries caused by a firearm.  

The court in this decision went on to grant summary judgment on the Plaintiff's companion bad faith claim on the rationale that there could be no bad faith where there was no coverage under the policy.

In case you are interested, the court in this decision also addressed claims of Section 1983 civil rights liability against the municipal defendants.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's Order can be viewed HERE.

Assumption of Risk Doctrine Supports Summary Judgment in Dirt Bike Accident case

In the case of Hawkins v. Switchback Mx., No. 2:16-CV-1719 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 12, 2018 Connor, J.), the court granted summary judgment in favor of a Defendant after ruling, by statute, that an operator of an off-road vehicle riding area has no duty to protect the riders from the well-known risks inherent to the activity, such as collisions and falls.  

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff injured himself when he made an unsuccessful jump on his dirt bike on an indoor track.  The Plaintiff was noted to have a decade of experience.

This court also affirmed the continuing validity of the assumption of risk doctrine by finding that the Plaintiff’s participation in this sport constituted an assumption of the risks involved as a matter of law. 

The court noted that the Plaintiff in this matter was experienced in the sport of dirt bike racing and was well aware that such activity had a risk of serious injury or death.  The court additionally reaffirmed the rule that a minor is capable of assuming the risk of a dangerous activity in certain circumstances.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's Order in the case can be viewed HERE.

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck, of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm and the writer of the excellent Drug and Device Law blog for bringing this case to my attention.