Auto Accidents Happen: Do You Know How You Would Respond?
Know how to respond to a car crash so you do not jeopardize your right to obtain adequate compensation for injuries, either from your auto insurance company or from a third party.


February 26, 2010 /24-7PressRelease/ -- Auto Accidents Happen: Do You Know How You Would Respond?

It is difficult to know how to react to an accident, whether you are the injured person or the one responsible for the injury. Once an accident happens, though, everyone involved should act ethically and efficiently, but unfortunately this does not always happen. One example of poor accident response is a case currently pending in the Wisconsin Supreme Court about an insurance company denying uninsured motorist coverage to a boy injured in a hit and run accident. This scenario offers lessons in responding to auto accidents in ways that ensure the injured can receive help with medical and other costs in Wisconsin.

Facts of the Case

In 2005, Zachary Zarder, then a child, was hit by a car while riding his bicycle in the street. The driver, two other passengers in the car, and several witnesses stopped to see if he was hurt. He told them he was not hurt. The car's driver and occupants left without providing any identification or insurance information and the witnesses walked away without further assistance. Shortly after the accident, Zachary developed pain. After seeking medical attention, doctors advised Zachary that he had multiple fractures and needed surgery.

The medical costs that health insurance would not cover became overwhelming for Zachary's parents, so they applied for reimbursement under their auto insurance policy's uninsured motorist coverage. The insurer, Acuity, denied their hit and run claim because the unidentified driver had stopped to talk to Zachary before driving away. The Zarders then sued Acuity for coverage.

Major Issues

Under a Wisconsin law known as the Omnibus Statute, insurance companies are required to provide uninsured motorist coverage to its insured. This coverage applies to those injured in accidents with uninsured drivers or in hit and runs. However, Acuity claimed that when a driver stops to check on a victim, even if unidentified, the run element of a hit and run is not satisfied. Using this technicality, it refused to cover the medical costs arising from Zachary's hit and run accident. Since the case was filed, two Wisconsin courts have issued opinions agreeing that Zachary should be covered under his parent's uninsured motorist policy, but they offered different reasons for arriving at this decision.

In Zarder v. Humana Ins. Co. (Zarder), the Waukesha Circuit Court agreed with Acuity that there was no run in the hit and run accident. However, they reasoned that Zachary should be covered under the Omnibus Statute, as protecting people, especially minors, injured in accidents by unidentified drivers is the statute's purpose. The Court of Appeals disagreed with Acuity and the circuit court, to an extent, arguing that the policy did not define the run element to specifically mean a driver fleeing from an accident without stopping. Instead, the court stated that when a driver leaves the scene without providing any identification, even if the driver stops to check on the victim, this is also a hit and run. The Wisconsin Supreme Court will definitively decide the issues in Zarder in February of this year.

Article provided by HERRLING CLARK LAW FIRM LTD
Visit us at www.herrlingclark.com

Further Related Resources:


Press Release Contact Information:

Findlaw PR