Home / Accident attorney / New Case Law: Who is Considered a "Household Member" for Insurance Coverage?

New Case Law: Who is Considered a "Household Member" for Insurance Coverage?

Many personal insurance policies require
coverage for policyholder "household members". But who just fills
"a household member"? Massachusetts Appeal Court considered
this question recently.

In that case,
Oliveira v. Kaupan vakuutusyhtiö, the claimant filed a claim against the insurance company for completeness
"a household member"
insurance owned by a long-term partner's mother and father,
which he had a child. In order to resolve the case, the Court of Justice was
check what the term "household member" meant and more specifically,
whether a blood-like concept contained two people
no blood relations between them, but everyone has a
blood relative to a third person.

The applicant was serious
in a car accident ride the third party driver in the vehicle. Carrier
suffer from serious injuries that require hospitalization, long-term disability,
and cause significant damage. The applicant accepted the report
third party insurance company, but also sought
get more
damages his partner on the basis of the mother's and stepfather's insurance.
The plaintiff lived with a long-term partner in a single-family unit
with her mother and her dad. The applicant was not married to her partner,
but they had a little boy together

This policy covered vehicles used by two vehicles
the applicant's homeowners' for damages for the bodily injury
for people who are injured or died due to certain accidents
unless there is sufficient insurance. "Politics is also included
the term "household member", who was "anyone"
who lives in your household that is in your blood, marriage, or adoption.
This includes parishes, steps, or children. "Insurer
contested the applicant's argument and stated that he did not meet the definition
"household member".

The applicant filed a claim with the Superior Court for breach of contract
and to seek clarification granting the applicant a "household"
member. "The judge admitted the insurer's summary report
A judgment stating that the applicant was not in the bloodstream either
the policyholder, so he was not a "household member" and not that
entitled to insurance. The applicant complained.

The Board of Appeal upheld the judgment in the case where the defendant was a lawyer.
"In the ordinary and ordinary sense, the term" peer-to-peer "
means a genetic relationship between these two persons
related, "the court explained." There is no genetic here
the relationship between the applicant and the policyholders; but the applicant
relies on both the applicant and one of the policyholders
is a genetic relationship with the child of the applicant …
the applicant requires a broad definition of 'blood'.
Political language, however, by adding "departments, step-children"
or promote children "to households
member ", makes it clear that the meaning is" related ".
blood, marriage or adoption "is not suitable for enlargement
in addition to its normal and normal meaning. Otherwise, there would be no need
add these persons to the definition of "household member". "

The Court also dismissed this case from two previous cases in which
The term "household member" was expanded
people who were similar to the carrier-however
the case involved precautionary measures in which the legislature intended
that the definition is broad, the Court stated. "Here we are
does not interpret the legislative language when it is trying to best implement it
the legislature's purpose. Instead, we have to follow the standard
and the meaning of the word "comparable to each other"
words mean the genetic relationship, and it is undeniable that the carrier
not with any policyholder, "the court explained.
"As the Supreme Court judge rightly justified
the fact that the applicant was not 'compared'
policyholders in the ordinary and ordinary sense of these words
the judge has duly submitted a summary statement to the insurer. "

If you have questions about things
tort law, car accidents or anything else
Injuries Contact a competent lawyer who is authorized to practice the law in Massachusetts.
Experienced professionals can work for you. Please
contact our offices at the earliest by telephone at 978-225-9030
or fill in the contact form on our website and we will answer you
as early as possible.

About admin

Check Also

Beware of the Dog – Horse – Cow, or any animal!

Henkilövahingot Väitteet johtuvat usein eläinten aiheuttamista loukkaantumisista, kun voidaan osoittaa, että olennon omistaja tai pitäjä …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *