Template Page - Swartz Campbell Detweiler -
[Cached Version]
Published on: 7/26/2001
Last Visited: 8/25/2002
In Curry, Mark Curry was in the course and scope of his employment with Management Engineering Corporation ("MEC") when he was struck by a dump truck and injured.At the time of the accident, Mr. Curry was performing a work-related study of an airport runway surface and was crouching over an instrument approximately twenty feet from the insured vehicle.The insured vehicle was a work truck with a revolving yellow light atop.The light was required to be lit to identify Mr. Curry's location on the runway.After the accident, Mr. Curry sought UM benefits from Huron Insurance Company ("Huron"), which insured Mr. Curry's work vehicle.Huron denied coverage.Mr. Curry filed declaratory judgment action, which was resolved by way of motion for summary judgment in favor of Huron.
On appeal, Mr. Curry argued that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Huron as he was "occupying" the insured vehicle at the time of the accident pursuant to Utica Mut.Inc. v. Contriscaine, 504 Pa. 328, 473 A.2d 1005 (1984) and its progeny.The court disagreed.In Utica Mut., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court set forth the following criteria for determining whether an individual is considered "occupying" an insured vehicle and entitled to benefits:
(1) there is a causal relation or connection between the injury and the use of the insured vehicle;
(2) the person asserting coverage must be in a reasonably close geographic proximity to the insured vehicle, although the person need not be actually touching it;
...
Curry, 2001 Pa. Super 234 at *7 (quoting Utica Mut., 473 A.2d at 1009).The court found that the third and fourth prongs of the Utica Mut. test were not satisfied, Mr. Curry argued that his use of the yellow beacon on the insured vehicle to mark his location on the runway, which was required by federal law, was sufficient to render him "vehicle oriented" at the time of the accident.The court disagreed, finding that Mr. Curry was not "engaged in an activity directed towards or in preparation of entering the vehicle," despite his use of the beacon.Finally, the court found that Mr. Curry's activity at the time of the accident was not essential to the use of the truck.Accordingly, it affirmed the trial court's determination that the Utica Mut. test was not satisfied and affirmed summary judgment in favor of the insurer.
5. Elite Collector Policy
In a Memorandum Opinion, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania revisited the issue of a policyholder's entitlement to underinsured motorist benefits under an Elite Collector Policy, when the collector car on the policy was not the one involved in the accident giving rise to the claim for benefits.
16 online sources [ view sources ]
Profile is not claimed [ claim profile ]
