- 656
I would imagine Companion Life has reworded the language in their policies as a result of this case in Michigan:
Drunken game of dirt-bike 'chicken:' Insurer owes $200K medical bill in crash
LOWELL, MI - When Beau Heimer crashed his dirt bike while drunk, incurring nearly $200,000 in medical costs, his insurance company denied benefits: the policy excluded injury resulting from "illegal use of alcohol."
U.S. District Judge Janet Neff said those key words - "illegal use of alcohol" - didn't absolve Companion Life Insurance Co. of responsibility for the medical bills.
Heimer was 22, legally allowed to drink, when the crash occurred in 2013. His illegal act wasn't drinking, rather it was riding the dirt bike while intoxicated before he crashed head-on into a friend's motorcycle.
"He did illegally drive an off-road vehicle," Neff wrote in her opinion. "The question is whether that is an illegal use of alcohol. Under the unambiguous language of the (insurance plan), the Court cannot so conclude."
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati upheld Neff's decision this week.
It found that Neff "read 'illegal use of alcohol' to disclaim coverage only for the illegal consumption of alcohol, and not for Heimer's illegal post-consumption conduct of operating a motorbike while under the influence of alcohol. The district court's reading is consistent with the ordinary meaning of 'use' and best gives effect to the contract as a whole."
Heimer and his buddies were drinking beer in April 2013 on a field off of Two Mile Road NE in Lowell when he and his friend collided head-on while playing a game of "chicken," court records said.
They were riding at each other to see who would "chicken out," court records showed.
He suffered "catastrophic" injuries with medical bills exceeding $197,000.
Heimer had a blood-alcohol level of 0.152 percent, or nearly twice the state's definition of intoxication, 0.08 percent. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of operating an off-road vehicle while intoxicated.
The appeal was decided by Chief Judge R. Guy Cole, and judges David McKeague and Jane Branstetter Stranch.
Cole, who wrote the opinion, said: "What was illegal about Heimer's behavior was his use of a motor vehicle, not of alcohol. And if there were any doubts, the district court explained, the contract should be construed against the insurance company as the drafter."
McKeague concurred in the ruling but issued a dissenting opinion. He disputed that the insurance policy's exclusion was unambiguous.
"Let's consider the context. Beau Darrell Heimer and some friends decided to over-indulge in alcoholic beverages to work up the nerve to hurtle themselves toward each other at high speed on dirt bikes - after nightfall in a farm field - to see who might 'chicken out' at the last second. No one plays this game sober. The alcohol they deliberately ingested emboldened them to play a reckless game of chicken, leading to predictably tragic results when neither Heimer nor his contestant 'blinked' and they collided head-on."
McKeague said that the insurance company "surely did not intend its policy to cover injuries arising from drunken participation in a reckless game of chicken. Reading 'illegal use of alcohol' so narrowly leaves one seeing double. But ultimately, in this case, the insurer must bear the consequences of its sloppy drafting."
Drunken game of dirt-bike 'chicken:' Insurer owes $200K medical bill in crash
Drunken game of dirt-bike 'chicken:' Insurer owes $200K medical bill in crash
LOWELL, MI - When Beau Heimer crashed his dirt bike while drunk, incurring nearly $200,000 in medical costs, his insurance company denied benefits: the policy excluded injury resulting from "illegal use of alcohol."
U.S. District Judge Janet Neff said those key words - "illegal use of alcohol" - didn't absolve Companion Life Insurance Co. of responsibility for the medical bills.
Heimer was 22, legally allowed to drink, when the crash occurred in 2013. His illegal act wasn't drinking, rather it was riding the dirt bike while intoxicated before he crashed head-on into a friend's motorcycle.
"He did illegally drive an off-road vehicle," Neff wrote in her opinion. "The question is whether that is an illegal use of alcohol. Under the unambiguous language of the (insurance plan), the Court cannot so conclude."
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati upheld Neff's decision this week.
It found that Neff "read 'illegal use of alcohol' to disclaim coverage only for the illegal consumption of alcohol, and not for Heimer's illegal post-consumption conduct of operating a motorbike while under the influence of alcohol. The district court's reading is consistent with the ordinary meaning of 'use' and best gives effect to the contract as a whole."
Heimer and his buddies were drinking beer in April 2013 on a field off of Two Mile Road NE in Lowell when he and his friend collided head-on while playing a game of "chicken," court records said.
They were riding at each other to see who would "chicken out," court records showed.
He suffered "catastrophic" injuries with medical bills exceeding $197,000.
Heimer had a blood-alcohol level of 0.152 percent, or nearly twice the state's definition of intoxication, 0.08 percent. He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of operating an off-road vehicle while intoxicated.
The appeal was decided by Chief Judge R. Guy Cole, and judges David McKeague and Jane Branstetter Stranch.
Cole, who wrote the opinion, said: "What was illegal about Heimer's behavior was his use of a motor vehicle, not of alcohol. And if there were any doubts, the district court explained, the contract should be construed against the insurance company as the drafter."
McKeague concurred in the ruling but issued a dissenting opinion. He disputed that the insurance policy's exclusion was unambiguous.
"Let's consider the context. Beau Darrell Heimer and some friends decided to over-indulge in alcoholic beverages to work up the nerve to hurtle themselves toward each other at high speed on dirt bikes - after nightfall in a farm field - to see who might 'chicken out' at the last second. No one plays this game sober. The alcohol they deliberately ingested emboldened them to play a reckless game of chicken, leading to predictably tragic results when neither Heimer nor his contestant 'blinked' and they collided head-on."
McKeague said that the insurance company "surely did not intend its policy to cover injuries arising from drunken participation in a reckless game of chicken. Reading 'illegal use of alcohol' so narrowly leaves one seeing double. But ultimately, in this case, the insurer must bear the consequences of its sloppy drafting."
Drunken game of dirt-bike 'chicken:' Insurer owes $200K medical bill in crash