The statutes governing casualty insurance had a much broader scope for pedestrians than the Motor Vehicle Code. (Credit: muse studio/Adobe Stock)
The justices of the Supreme Court of Washington determined that, under Washington law governing casualty insurance, the term “pedestrian” includes a person riding a bicycle. The case is McLaughlin v. Travelers Commercial Ins. Co., 476 P.3d 1032 (Wash. 2020).
What happened
Todd McLaughlin was taking a bike ride on a public street when he was struck by an opening car door and was injured. He sought pedestrian coverage under his auto policy, which had been issued by Travelers. His claim was denied on the basis that he was not considered a “pedestrian” at the time of injury. McLaughlin requested Travelers review the decision, but the insurer was not swayed.
McLaughlin sued Travelers for breach. The trial court found that McLaughlin hadn’t been a “pedestrian” at the time of injury because he was riding his bike. The intermediate appellate court agreed, saying a cyclist wasn’t included in the dictionary definition for “pedestrian.” McLaughlin appealed to the Supreme Court of Washington.
Defining ‘pedestrian’
The sole issue on appeal was whether a person on a bicycle could be considered a pedestrian under the policy. In Rev. Code Wash. §46.04.400, the Washington Motor Vehicle Code specifically excluded bicyclists from the definition of “pedestrian.” The intermediate appellate court had determined this definition worked in sync with the definition of “pedestrian” under Rev. Code Wash. §48.22.005, which defined “pedestrian” in the context of casualty insurance.
The justices of the state high court acknowledged the Motor Vehicle Code’s definition of “pedestrian,” but they also pointed out the scope of that definition was confined to use in the Motor Vehicle Code “except where otherwise defined, and unless where used the context thereof shall clearly indicate to the contrary” (Rev. Code Wash. §46.04.010; italics original, bold added).
Personal auto coverage like McLaughlin’s is a subset of casualty insurance. Therefore, the justices determined that, since the term “pedestrian” was “otherwise defined” in the context of casualty insurance, the definition found in Rev. Code Wash. §48.22.005 would apply to their analysis of the Travelers policy.
The statutes governing casualty insurance had a much broader scope for pedestrians than the Motor Vehicle Code. Under Rev. Code Wash. §46.04.400, the term “pedestrian” only included individuals on foot and anyone “using a wheelchair, a power wheelchair, or a means of conveyance propelled by human power other than a bicycle” (emphasis added). On the other hand, Rev. Code Wash. §48.22.005 declared that any person “not occupying a motor vehicle” was considered a pedestrian.
Though Rev. Code Wash. §48.22.005 did not explicitly include cyclists in its purview, the Supreme Court of Washington reasoned that McLaughlin qualified as a pedestrian under Rev. Code Wash. §48.22.005 because, at the time he was injured, he wasn’t occupying a motor vehicle. Since McLaughlin was considered a pedestrian under state law, he was therefore entitled to coverage under the Travelers policy.
It was ambiguous anyway
According to the court, even if Rev. Code Wash. §48.22.005 had not applied to McLaughlin’s case, the term “pedestrian,” as used in his auto policy with Travelers, was ambiguous. A term in an insurance policy is considered “ambiguous” when it is susceptible to multiple reasonable interpretations. An ambiguous term in an insurance policy is interpreted against the insurer and according to the reasonable expectations of the insured.
As discussed above, there was no definition for “pedestrian” in McLaughlin’s auto policy. When a term is not defined in a particular policy, courts look to the dictionary, state law, industry standards, or a combination of them to fill in the blanks. In this case, even though the dictionary definition of pedestrian drew a distinction between a person on foot and a person on a bicycle, Washington law specified otherwise. Under state law, “pedestrian” was subject to two separate yet equally reasonable definitions. Since the term was literally subject to multiple reasonable interpretations, it was considered ambiguous and therefore had to be interpreted according to the reasonable expectations of the insured: McLaughlin.
Conclusion
Therefore, since McLaughlin was considered a pedestrian under state law, and the term was, at any rate, ambiguous, the justices ruled that McLaughlin’s injuries were covered under his auto policy with Travelers. The decision of the trial and appellate courts was reversed and sent back for consistent proceedings.
Author’s Note: In insurance, when policy language is ambiguous, the benefit of the doubt goes to the insured. The Supreme Court of Washington said McLaughlin’s expectation of coverage from Travelers was reasonable because the average person would expect to be covered by his or her auto policy when he or she suffered injury in an auto collision, period, “whether the insured was walking, skateboarding, using a wheelchair, standing on a sidewalk, sitting on a park bench, riding a bike, or doing something else” when the injury occurred. Since McLaughlin’s interpretation of the term “insured” was reasonable, and there were multiple varied definitions of pedestrian in statute, the court said Travelers had to cover his injuries.
© Touchpoint Markets, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to TMSalesOperations@arc-network.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.