Legal Opinion · Dissent

Pistorius v. Travelers Insurance

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 20, 1985No. 332Published

1DissentCirillo, Judge

I respectfully dissent, primarily because I interpret the No-Fault Act as being narrower in scope than does the majority here today.

Dirt bikes 1 are recreational vehicles, not motor vehicles, because they cannot be licensed under the Motor Vehicle Code due to their lack of certain safety features. 40 P.C.S. § 1009.103. Thus, in an ordinary one vehicle accident involving only a dirt bike, the No-Fault Act is inapplicable entirely, and the rider receives no insurance benefits. However, by my Brethren’s analysis of 40 P.C.S. § 1009.103, a dirt bike rider can receive benefits if he collides with…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Singer v. SheppardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  2. Habecker v. Nationwide InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  3. Schimmelbusch v. Royal-Globe InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  4. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance v. FalliganSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  5. Valdes v. Prudence Mutual Casualty CompanyDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1968

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API