Thompson v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 80CA0045
| Decision Date | 11 September 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 80CA0045,80CA0045 |
| Citation | 618 P.2d 736 |
| Parties | John A. THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DAIRYLAND INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. . I |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Michael R. Bromley, P. C., Michael R. Bromley, Colorado Springs, for plaintiff-appellant.
Melat & Wheeler, Jeffrey R. Wheeler, Colorado Springs, for defendant-appellee.
Plaintiff appeals the trial court judgment entering summary judgment in favor of defendant, Dairyland Insurance Company, and dismissing plaintiff's complaint. We affirm.
The parties submitted a pretrial stipulation to the court which contained the following undisputed facts. While driving his motorcycle, plaintiff was involved in an accident with a pickup truck. As a result of that accident, plaintiff suffered serious personal injuries and incurred medical and rehabilitative expenses and loss of income. At the time of the accident, plaintiff was the named insured under a motorcycle insurance policy issued by Dairyland which policy included liability, collision, and comprehensive insurance provisions. Plaintiff made a formal demand upon Dairyland for payment of his medical and rehabilitative expenses and his loss of income (PIP coverage). Dairyland refused to make such payments.
Both parties filed motions for summary judgment based upon the stipulation and upon plaintiff's insurance policy issued by Dairyland. The trial court found that no issues of material fact existed and that the facts are as stated above. The court concluded that, as a matter of law, § 10-4-703(7), C.R.S.1973, specifically excludes motorcycles from inclusion in the Colorado Auto Accident Reparations Act, § 10-4-701 et seq., C.R.S.1973; that § 10-4-707(2), C.R.S.1973, does not expand the coverage of the Act of plaintiff; and that the insurance agreement entered into between the parties does not include coverages sought by plaintiff in this action. We agree.
On appeal, plaintiff contends that the Act requires an insurer to provide PIP coverage for injuries received by its insured as a result of an accident in which the insured's motorcycle is hit by another car. We disagree.
Section 10-4-703, C.R.S.1973, states the definitions to be used in the Act, unless the context otherwise requires. The definition of "motor vehicle" specifically excludes motorcycles. See § 10-4-703(7), C.R.S.1973. The provisions of the Act requiring coverage and specifying the minimum coverages required refer to the definition of "motor vehicles" found in § 10-4-703(7), C.R.S.1973.
Plaintiff relies upon §§ 10-4-707(1)(a) and (2), C.R.S.1973. Section 10-4-707(2), C.R.S.1973, provides:
Section 10-4-707(1)(a), C.R.S.1973, provides that the minimum coverages required by the Act shall be applicable to:
"Accidental bodily injury sustained by the named insured when injured in an accident involving any motor vehicle, regardless of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DeHerrera v. Sentry Ins. Co., 99SC379.
...a class which specifically excludes motorcycles and off-road vehicles. DeHerrera, 992 P.2d at 633 (citing Thompson v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 618 P.2d 736 (Colo.App.1980)). Because the injured insured was riding an off-road motorcycle, the court held that PIP coverage is not required by Turning......
-
Fazio v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...PIP coverage. However, under § 10-4-705(3), coverage for motorcycles is limited to liability coverage only. Thompson v. Dairyland Insurance Co., 618 P.2d 736 (Colo.App.1980); see also Brucha v. Cruise America, Inc., 53 P.3d 700, 2001 WL 1548720 (Colo.App. No. 01CA0057, Dec. 6, 2001). See ge......
-
Brucha v. Cruise America, Inc., 01CA0057.
...he or she cannot recover PIP benefits for an injury incurred while operating his or her own motorcycle. Thompson v. Dairyland Insurance Co., 618 P.2d 736 (Colo.App.1980); see also Martinez v. Allstate Insurance Co., 961 P.2d 531 (Colo.App.1997). However, § 10-4-707(1)(a), C.R.S.2001, mandat......
-
Lamb v. GEICO GENERAL INS. CO., 01CA2544.
...for use on public highways—if such vehicle is not actually covered under the terms of the No-Fault Act. In Thompson v. Dairyland Insurance Co., 618 P.2d 736 (Colo.App.1980), a division of this court construed this statutory language as excluding street motorcycles from mandatory PIP coverag......
-
APPENDIX B
...of use or operation of named insured's own motor vehicle not actually covered under the No-Fault Act. Thompson v. Dairyland Insurance Co., 618 P.2d 736, 737 (Colo. App. 1980). In Thompson v. Dairyland Insurance Co., 618 P.2d 736 (Colo. App. 1980), the plaintiff was driving his motorcycle an......