An appellate court in Washington, affirming a trial court's decision, has ruled that the ordinary meaning of "pedestrian" did not include a bicyclist and, therefore, has denied the bicyclist's claim for personal injury protection ("PIP") benefits under his auto insurance policy.
The Case
Todd McLaughlin alleged that he was injured while riding his bicycle on Westlake Avenue in Seattle, Washington, when Daniel Moore, who was parked on the street, opened his driver's side door, striking Mr. McLaughlin.
At the time, Mr. McLaughlin was covered by a California personal auto insurance policy from Travelers Commercial Insurance Company that provided PIP benefits of up to $5,000 in medical expenses sustained by an "insured," defined as "a pedestrian when struck by" a motor vehicle. The policy did not define the term "pedestrian."
Mr. McLaughlin sought coverage for his medical expenses under the policy.
Travelers denied coverage, finding that he was not a pedestrian because he was riding his bicycle.
Mr. McLaughlin sued Travelers, and the parties moved for summary judgment on Mr. McLaughlin's breach of contract claim.
The trial court concluded that the ordinary and common meaning of the term "pedestrian" did not include a bicyclist and, therefore, it granted Travelers' motion for summary judgment.
Mr. McLaughlin appealed.
The Appellate Court's Decision
The appellate court affirmed, disagreeing with Mr. McLaughlin that the ordinary meaning of "pedestrian" included a bicyclist.
In its decision, the appellate court explained that the Travelers policy defined an "insured" as, among other things, a "pedestrian" when struck by a motor vehicle, and that the term "pedestrian" was not defined in the policy.
Looking at its "plain, ordinary, and popular meaning," the appellate court held that pedestrian did not include a bicyclist and, therefore, that the trial court did not err in concluding that Mr. McLaughlin was not an insured under the policy and that Travelers was entitled to summary judgment.
The appellate court rejected Mr. McLaughlin's argument that public policy concerns weighed in favor of defining a bicyclist as a "pedestrian" because bicyclists, like pedestrians, were "particularly vulnerable and susceptible to injury on the roadway." An undefined term in an insurance policy, it concluded, "must be given its plain, ordinary, and popular meaning" and there was no authority for the proposition that the plain meaning of an undefined term could be set aside on policy grounds.
The case is McLaughlin v. Travelers Commercial Ins. Co., No. 78534-6-I (Wash. Ct. App. Aug. 12, 2019). Attorneys involved include: For Appellant: Robert Craig Levin, Washington Bike Law, Seattle, WA; Philip Albert Talmadge, Talmadge/Fitzpatrick/Tribe, Seattle, WA; Aaron Paul Orheim, Talmadge Fitzpatrick Tribe, Seattle, WA. For Respondent: Thomas Lether, Eric Jay Neal, Lether & Associates, PLLC, Seattle, WA; Julia Norwood, Ogden Murphy Wallace, Seattle, WA; Jenna Renee Mark, Attorney at Law, Seattle, WA. For Amicus Curiae on behalf of United Policy Holders: Ian S Birk, Keller Rohrback, LLP, Seattle, WA.
Steven A. Meyerowitz
Steven A. Meyerowitz, a Harvard Law School graduate, is the founder and president of Meyerowitz Communications Inc., a law firm marketing communications consulting company. He may be contacted at [email protected].