by plutostar » Thu Feb 16, 2012 08:19 am
Hey there im new here and i don't know if this is a right place to put this but im am studying for my insurance contract test and im having trouble understanding the PIP policy exclusions. to be specific its under Exclusion A number 3 and 4. i dont really comprehend what it is trying to say there. can anyone help me out on this?
Exclusions
we do not provide personal injury protection coverage for any insured:
3. other than the named insured if that insured owns a motor vehicle for which security is required under the florida motor vehicle no fault law
4. other than the named insured or any family memer who is entitled to personal injury protection benefits from a person who owns a mother vehicle which is not a your covered auto under this policy or from what that vehicle owner's policy
thanks for the help and are there any sites that go through the contract in detail and explain each part of it?
Exclusions
we do not provide personal injury protection coverage for any insured:
3. other than the named insured if that insured owns a motor vehicle for which security is required under the florida motor vehicle no fault law
4. other than the named insured or any family memer who is entitled to personal injury protection benefits from a person who owns a mother vehicle which is not a your covered auto under this policy or from what that vehicle owner's policy
thanks for the help and are there any sites that go through the contract in detail and explain each part of it?
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 10:09 am Post Subject:
FL is odd on who gets PIP from where.
If my bother and I live in the same household and he's injured in a friends vehicle, my brother could get PIP from my policy just because we live in the same household.
My brother might be listed as a driver on my policy which makes him an insured but not a named insured. If the above exclusion were listed on my policy then my policy would be stating my brother would not get PIP from my policy in the above-mentioned accident if he had his own vehicle that required PIP (regardless of having it or not).
The PIP statute trumps any policy language. It's been a few years but I think what this exclusion is trying to do is address situations as mentioned above when the "brother" (in this case) owns a vehicle that is required to carry PIP but it does not.
I recall some case law on this subject which is why it rings a bell.
Add your comment