Court limits recovery

Risk & Insurance, May, 2004

The Connecticut Supreme Court has determined that when a bystander's emotional distress is the result of witnessing the bodily injury of a third party, the only available recovery would be under the third party's per-person bodily injury limits as defined in the insurance policy.

"The Court chose to adopt a reasonable approach and limit recovery by relying on the language of the insurance policy," said Gerald L. Zimmerman, assistant vice president and regional manager for the Property Casualty Insurance Association of America.

The original case, Galgano vs. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Co., involved a father and son who were both injured when an uninsured driver struck their motorcycle.

The father claimed he suffered emotional distress from witnessing his son being injured and attempted to claim benefits for emotional distress under his uninsured motorist coverage. The insurer denied the father's claims because the policy limit had already been paid to the son for the injuries he sustained.

COPYRIGHT 2004 Axon Group
COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning

 

BNET TalkbackShare your ideas and expertise on this topic

Please add your comment:

  1. You are currently: a Guest |
  2.  

Basic HTML tags that work in comments are: bold (<b></b>), italic (<i></i>), underline (<u></u>), and hyperlink (<a href></a)

advertisement
advertisement
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
advertisement
Click Here

Content provided in partnership with Thompson Gale