Legal Opinion · Dissent

Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. v. Skin

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided July 10, 2009No. S-12586Published

1Dissent

WINFREE, Justice,

with whom MATTHEWS, Justice, joins, dissenting in part. ' '

I respectfully disagree with the court's conclusion that Joseph Skin is entitled to medical-payments -(med-pay) coverage under his mother's policy. In my view this conclusion is inconsistent and incompatible with our *1104decision that Joseph Skin is not entitled to liability coverage under the policy.

Fundamental to our decision that Joseph Skin had no liability coverage while operating the Nageaks' ATV is the special definition of "vehicle" in the policy's "General Definitions" section:

"Vehicle" means a land motor vehicle:

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Dugan v. Atlanta Casualty CompaniesAlaska Supreme Court · 2005
  2. Jirousek v. Prudential Ins. Co. of AmericaOhio Supreme Court · 1971
  3. Allstate Insurance Co. v. FalgoustAlaska Supreme Court · 2007
  4. In re the Arbitration between Progressive Insurance Companies & NemitzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
  5. Getz v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2001

6 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