skip to Main Content

INSURANCE COVERAGE: Appellate Court holds underinsured motorist benefits not triggered by accident where injured motorist not “occupying” an insured vehicle

INSURANCE COVERAGE: Appellate Court Holds Underinsured Motorist Benefits Not Triggered By Accident Where Injured Motorist Not “occupying” An Insured Vehicle

An employee of a roofing company was exiting a company truck and walked past its rear bumper when he was struck by another vehicle.  The employee sought underinsured motorist benefits from the defendant insurer under the roofing company’s commercial auto policy.

The trial court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff appealed, arguing that there was a disputed issue of fact as to whether he was insured under the policy.

The Appellate Court held that the policy clearly applied only to the company, not to the employee individually, and thus to be covered under the policy, the employee must have been “occupying” an insured vehicle at the time of injury.  The Court agreed with the trial court that, using the “physical contact” test, the plaintiff presented no material dispute that he was not occupying the insured vehicle at the time of injury.  The Court further rejected the plaintiff’s contention that a “proximity” test should have been applied. 

Puente v. Progressive Northwestern Insurance Company, 181 Conn.App. 852 (2018)

Interested in more information?
Contact us now for experienced and professional legal counsel.

This is Attorney Advertising. This web site is designed for general information only. The information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship.