Skip to main content
A Better Partnership
June 18, 2014

COA finds that heavily modified Jeep was not a motor vehicle within the meaning of the no-fault act

In Gividen v. Bristol West Insurance Company, No. 312082, the Court of Appeals considered whether a particular Jeep was a motor vehicle within the meaning of the no fault act.  In this case, Plaintiff was seeking personal injury protection benefits from an insurer that covered a heavily modified Jeep that he had collided with.  In particular, this Jeep did not have its lights, signals and meters "hooked up" and had modified the shell and tires, such that it was no longer fit for travel on public highways.  Thus, the Court found the vehicle was no longer designed for operation upon a public highway as required by the statutory definition, and the policy was not required to provide personal injury protection benefits.  

NOTICE. Although we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Also, we cannot treat unsolicited information as confidential. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any matter that may involve you until you receive a written statement from us that we represent you.

By clicking the ‘ACCEPT’ button, you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us, and even if you consider it confidential, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.

Please click the ‘ACCEPT’ button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.

ACCEPTCANCEL

Text

+ -

Reset