Default Denied in PIP/UM Subro Suit for Failure to Plead Essential Facts (Courtside)
Insurance Advocate 2011, March 7, 122, 5
This book is available for download with iBooks on your Mac or iOS device, and with iTunes on your computer. Books can be read with iBooks on your Mac or iOS device.
Utica Mutual Ins. Co. v Lynton This court decision involves a fact pattern that is not often litigated: it is a PIP and UM subro suit against a non-covered person--that status applying because the defendant was driving without auto insurance. After Utica Mutual paid both PIP and UM benefits to its insured, it brought this subro suit against the uninsured driver. When the defendant failed to answer the Complaint, Utica moved for a default judgment. The District Court first analyzes whether it has jurisdiction to hear the suit because the total amount sought is over 515,000. Then the Court denies the default judgment on the grounds that Utica failed to plead essential elements of both a PIP subro and UM subro claim; in the case of PIP, that its insured did not bring its own tort action within 2 years; and in the case of UM, that the insured sustained a "serious injury."--LNR
- Category: Industries & Professions
- Published: Mar 07, 2011
- Publisher: CINN Group, Inc.
- Seller: The Gale Group, Inc.
- Print Length: 13 Pages
- Language: English