QuestionQUESTION: It is my understanding that non at fault insureds are required to repay their PIP carrier once the claim has settled. However I have heard there are exceptions to this subrogation rule having to do with accidents involving commercial vehicles over a certain gross weight. Does the PIP carrier still get repaid when the claimant vehicle is a commercial vehicle of a large gross weight?
ANSWER: I am sorry for the delay, I have been ill. . . .
Nice question. The law on PIP is regulated by statutes in most States. You did not provide me with the State so I cannot answer your question properly.
There are some strange PIP subro laws on the books. For example, in Florida, there is a statute that says subrogation is allowed if the plaintiff's vehicle is a commercial motor vehicle, or if the plaintiff is a pedestrian struck by a commercial motor vehicle.
If you'll provide the State, I can be of more insight.
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION: The state in question is Washington State. Any special rules claimants should be aware of when struck by a commercial auto regarding subro or anything else?
P.S drink lots of water and feel better soon.
AnswerI'll do some research and amend this answer if I am wrong, but off the top of my head I am not aware of any statute in Washington state the addresses commercial vehicles and their weight as it relates to PIP and subrogation rights. Georgia has a law that deals with gross weight and subro rights. . . I think it says (in Georgia) that subrogation of PIP payments by the insurance carrier is allowed only if one of the vehicles involved weighed over 6500 lbs, but that law may have changed when no fault was repealed back in the early 90's. . .
Anyway. . . in Washington, I don't recall anything on point as it relates to vehicle weight and PIP recovery rights. In Washington, the best I can figure is that it is the policy language that controls the right of recovery in most cases. Strangely enough, Washington is one of those States where there is case law on both sides of the contractual subro argument in that there is some precedence that supports the ability of a policy to override the "made whole" doctrine, and case law that says the "made-whole" cannot be overridden by policy language.
If you really want an in depth review of the case, we'll look at it for free and provide our professional opinion on the matter. Information is always free at Petty Details, LLC. If we can't find the answer, we know attorneys that can. . . .
