Pistorius v. Travelers Insurance
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
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
- Singer v. SheppardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
- Habecker v. Nationwide InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
- Schimmelbusch v. Royal-Globe InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
- Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance v. FalliganSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
- Valdes v. Prudence Mutual Casualty CompanyDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1968
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.