Victim Hurt Trying to Stop Car Theft
By Shannon P Duffy
U.S. Courthouse Correspondent
Finding that “public policy” trumps the plain language of an insurance policy, a federal magistrate judge has ruled that an insurer cannot deny coverage to a man who was injured while attempting to prevent the theft of his own car.
Lawyers for the Progressive Insurance Co. argued that an exclusion in its policy unambiguously bars uninsured motorist coverage for any accident involving a car “owned by” the insured.
But U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacob P. Hart found that enforcing such an exclusion against a driver who was injured by a car thief would be unconscionable.
“We find it repugnant when faced with the facts of this case to deny coverage,” Hart wrote in his nine-page opinion in Progressive Insurance Co. v. Gondi.
According to the suit, Midhat Gondi left his car keys in the ignition when he went into a West Philadelphia store on May 13, 2003. As he exited the store, he noticed that a thief was behind the wheel and beginning to pull away.
Gondi attempted to stop the thief, but failed and was struck by his own car, fracturing his shoulder and several ribs.
When Gondi filed a claim for up to $500,000 in uninsured motorist coverage—namingthe unknown thief as the uninsured driver Progressive Insurance denied coverage and filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that coverage was excluded.
Lawyers on both sides agreed about the essential facts of the case, but disputed both the meaning of the policy language and whether it was enforceable.
Gondi’s lawyer, Richard M. Golomb of Golomb & Honik, argued that the policy was ambiguous because its definition of an “uninsured motor vehicle” was inconsistent.
Hart disagreed, saying he found “no ambiguity” in the policy language, and that the Pennsylvania and federal courts have consistently rejected identical ambiguity arguments.
But Golomb succeeded in his second argument—that enforcing the exclusion in Gondi’s case would be “contrary to a clearly expressed public policy.”
Urging Hart to use the court’s inherent powers to enforce public policy, Golomb cited the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s 1985 decision in Antanovich v. Allstate Insurance Co. in which the justices held that “when a given policy is so obviously for or against the public health, safety, morals or welfare that there is a virtual unanimity of opinion in regard to it … a court may constitute itself the voice of the community in declaring that policy to be against public policy.”
Hart focused on the public policy behind the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act.
“The stated purposes of the MVFRA are to bring down the cost of auto insurance and decrease the number of uninsured drivers on the roads,” Hart wrote.
Hart concluded that the goals of MVFRA would be frustrated if Gondi were denied coverage.
“Here, in his attempt to stop the theft of his car, which loss would be covered by his comprehensive coverage, Mr. Gondi was hit and injured. Had he been successful in his attempt, he would have saved his insurance company the claim for the loss of the car,” Hart wrote.
“Thus, enforcement of the exclusion runs afoul of the first stated purpose. In addition, enforcement of the exclusion would result in a premium-paying, fully insured driver, being denied coverage for his injuries,” Hart wrote.
As a result, Hart concluded that a decision in favor of the insurance company “certainly is no incentive to insure one’s vehicle.”
Forced to predict Pennsylvania law, Hart concluded that “if faced with the specific facts of this case, the courts of Pennsylvania would conclude that enforcement of the exclusion would violate public policy.”
Progressive Insurance Co.’s lawyer, Carol Ann Murphy of Margolis Edelstein, could not be reached for comment.
