Taxicab driver’s own policy provides PIP coverage, rules MD Court of Appeals

Navigation: Main page

Author: Ann W. Parks

Story Type: News

A taxicab driver injured in a 2001 collision was entitled to personal injury protection coverage under his own automobile policy, the Court of Appeals has held.The decision reversed a lower court judgment rejecting Ebrahim Nasseri's claim for personal injury protection, or PIP, coverage. Nasseri received minor injuries when his taxicab was rear-ended in Montgomery County by another driver who fell asleep at the wheel."[U]nder the circumstances of this case, the fact that Nasseri was driving a taxicab furnished no valid basis for denying him PIP benefits required by the Insurance Code," retired Judge John C. Eldridge wrote for the court, resolving a case from the September 2003 term.Nor could GEICO General Insurance Co. rely on an exclusion to PIP coverage for injuries involving vehicles not covered by the policy but "available for the regular use of" the insured. That exclusion was unauthorized by the Insurance Article and was invalid, the top court held. Potomac lawyer Mark Kotlarsky, who represented Nasseri, said the outcome of the case was no mystery to him."The only thing that surprised me was how long it took to decide the case," he said, noting that oral arguments in the case took place in January 2004 â€" nearly two years ago. "The court finally determined that if you're a taxi driver and have your own car and policy, you will be paid [PIP coverage if injured in an accident]; your own car's personal injury protection will pay for the injury."Nasseri's taxi was owned not by him but by Action Taxicab Inc., which collected $95 per day for its use. Since Nasseri had only liability insurance for the taxi, he submitted a $2,500 claim for PIP protection under the separate policy he maintained for his personal motor vehicle. GEICO denied coverage, pointing out that taxicabs are excluded from the definition of "motor vehicle" in §19-501 of the Insurance Article. Section 19-505 requires an insurer to provide PIP coverage for anyone injured in any motor vehicle accident unless coverage has been waived.Nasseri filed a suit for damages in Montgomery County District Court, which agreed with GEICO that the taxicab exclusion in the statute barred Nasseri's right to PIP benefits. The Montgomery County Circuit Court affirmed on appeal, albeit on other grounds; the "regular use" exception in his policy, the court held, was enough to preclude his claim.The Court of Appeals, though, rejected both holdings. It was irrelevant, the court noted, whether taxicabs were exempt from the statutory definition of "motor vehicle" since Nasseri was clearly injured in a "motor vehicle accident" under §19-505."[T]he statute defines ‘motor vehicle accident' as ‘an occurrence involving a motor vehicle that results in damage to property or injury to a person,'" Eldridge wrote. "The occurrence in the present case clearly involved ‘a motor vehicle,' namely the other vehicle with which Nasseri's taxicab collided." And the exclusion in Nasseri's policy, the court held, went beyond any of the authorized exclusions set forth in §19-505.Kotlarsky said that as a practical matter, taxicab drivers usually do not obtain PIP coverage for their cabs but, like Nasseri, will have it available if they have a personal vehicle. The provision in the statute that does not require PIP coverage for taxicabs was designed to allow for reduced insurance costs, he said.WHAT THE COURT HELDCase: Ebrahim Nasser v. Geico General Insurance Co., CA No. 60, Sept. Term 2003. Reported. Opinion by Eldridge, J. (ret., specially assigned). Filed Dec. 15, 2005.Issue:Did the circuit court err in denying personal injury protection coverage to a taxicab driver injured in a two-car accident? Holding: Yes; reversed and remanded. Ins. Art. 19-505 requires the insurer to provide PIP coverage for anyone injured in any motor vehicle accident. While a taxi is excluded from the definition of motor vehicle, the other vehicle was not. Further, the "regular use" exclusion from PIP coverage is not authorized by law.Counsel: Mark Kotlarsky for petitioner; Francis J. Ford for respondent.

(c) 2005 Dolan Media, all Rights Reserved.