Wait. So her son was on the bus to school, which collided with another bus...
And she's filed a claim with *her* car insurance company? Is that normal?
I would argue that it doesn't fall under the definition of "automobile accident" for those purposes either.
I get that the legal definition doesn't fit, but a plain language interpretation of what personal injury protection should cover would include an accident between buses. I'd like to know whether the policy defined automobiles or specifically excluded buses.
>“I don’t think that an average person will think a school bus is an automobile,” he said. “It’s a lot different than an automobile.”
No it's not. Engine, transmission, driveshaft, differential, axles, wheels and tires, windows, windshield, control arms, steering rack, heater core, etc. Same thing, dumbass.
It would be really simple for the state legislators to fix their error by amending the law to read *vehicular* accident rather than specifically *automobile*.
Odds are, the insurance lobby would fight that effort tooth and nail.
> “What this means is they have written a policy that says you are covered by automobile accident but you don’t have coverage if you are a pedestrian and you are hit by anything designed to carry more than 10 passengers.”
Terrorists, take note.
Anyone who has State Farm Insurance should read this article. Then call them and tell them you read it and you're switching to another insurance company. Everyone else call State Farm and tell them you'll never do business with them.
Just because it's legal doesn't make it right. They screwed this family on a technicality.
>The Division III Court of Appeals this week upheld an earlier ruling that State Farm was not on the hook to reimburse Svetlana Koren because two school buses hitting each other does not constitute an automobile collision under the state’s definition.
“The most scary thing to me is for pedestrians or people on bikes,” Casey said. “If you are walking, you better hope to get hit by an automobile and not a bus.”
I was just reading about the case a few days ago. The [court opinion](https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/347231_pub.pdf
) is an interesting read. It's also surprisingly an easy read. Here's the conclusion from that opinion:
>>Excluding Eric’s school bus accident from PIP coverage does not violate public policy. Consistent with State Farm’s insurance policy, Washington law only contemplates PIP coverage for “automobiles.” Like State Farm, Washington defines an “automobile” as a passenger car designed for carrying 10 passengers or less. By its plain terms, Washington law does not require insurance companies to offer PIP coverage for large capacity vehicles, such as the school buses involved in this case. To the extent Mrs. Koren believes the public would be better served by requiring insurers to offer PIP coverage for all motor vehicle accidents, not just those involving an "automobile," her concerns must be raised with the legislature. Our court can offer no relief.
Is a semi-truck an automobile, but a bus isn't?! What the actual fuck
I would be interested to read Washington State driving rules to see if laws there are written to say automobile instead of vehicle.
For example, if the law says any automobile must stop at a stop sign, that means buses can drive right through them.
Washington State requires all motor vehicle drivers to obtain insurance before they can legally drive. That includes driving a bus.
For an insurance company to write motor vehicle policies that exclude certain motor vehicles amounts to fraud.
Her lawyer should file a complaint with the State Insurance Commissioner. No insurance company should be allowed to write policies that do not cover what they appear to cover. Either the insurance companies should be required to amend those policies, or they should be excluded from writing insurance in that State. The insurance companies should not be allowed to write motor vehicle policies that exclude certain types of motor vehicles - or at least such policies should not qualify to meet the State requirement to have motor vehicle insurance coverage. State Farm would change their tune pretty fast if their motor vehicle insurance no longer met the State requirements to qualify as motor vehicle insurance.
If this ruling is allowed to stand then no bus is insured in that State. This includes if the bus runs into a pedestrian, a bicyclist, or simply runs off the road and turns over.
ITT people didnt read.
This seems like something that should have been covered by the bus insurance. Kid was riding the bus, it got in a wreck and he was injured.
Similar to if someone was riding in my truck and we got into wreck. They wouldn't be calling their auto insurance, they would file a claim with mine.
Unless the bus is horse drawn or flintstone like powered by the passengers its an automobile, something that moves under its own power.
so buy a bus, drive that and save on auto insurance?