A view from inside of a car as pedestrians cross the road in front of them. In this case, a teenage boy was hit by a car while riding his bike, and the boy’s father sought UM benefits for his son as a “relative” under the father’s Direct Auto policy. (Credit: ambrozinio/Shutterstock.com)

The Appellate Court of Illinois ruled against an auto insurance carrier who denied two separate claims for coverage because the injured parties were not physically inside an insured auto at the time of the accidents. The case is called Galarza v. Direct Auto Ins. Co., 2022 Ill. App. LEXIS 421 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). 

This case consolidated two appeals from separate cases that both involved Direct Auto. However, each case was based on nearly-identical policy language that excluded uninsured motorist (UM) coverage for pedestrians struck by a hit-and-run vehicle because a pedestrian, by definition, cannot occupy a covered vehicle. 

 

PropertyCasualty360

Join PropertyCasualty360

Don’t miss crucial news and insights you need to make informed decisions for your P&C insurance business. Join PropertyCasualty360.com now!

  • Unlimited access to PropertyCasualty360.com - your roadmap to thriving in a disrupted environment
  • Access to other award-winning ALM websites including BenefitsPRO.com, ThinkAdvisor.com and Law.com
  • Exclusive discounts on PropertyCasualty360, National Underwriter, Claims and ALM events

Already have an account? Sign In Now
Join PropertyCasualty360

Copyright © 2022 ALM Global, LLC. All Rights Reserved.