NATALIE S. DEUTSCH,
GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Description
The case involves Deutsche as the plaintiff. Mostly, she acquired injuries while working out in a mobile Gym run by Noedell in the back of the truck. In essence, the car was packed in her premises and was a result of the owner’s negligence. The client suffered permanent injuries (DCA, 2). Mostly the truck is not insured as a premise.
Synopsis of the case
The court’s decision was in favour of the insurance company, which covers Natalie. The court opined and ruled that Natalie was not to be compensated by the company since the insurance was to cover premises (DCA, 2). However, the vehicle could not be defined as a premise. In this argument, the word premises was used to mean land or structure on a piece of land (DCA, YouTube). The truck may have been covered as a vehicle, but Natalie did not use it as so, and hence her insurance company could not insure as so.
Appellant’s argument
The appellant, through her attorney, argues that the company should cover her since the vehicle used by the defendant was at the particular time a premise. Primarily, the insurance company’s argument that the truck was an insured vehicle does not, therefore, provide an accurate description (DCA, YouTube). According to the appellant, the term premises has a broad and elastic definition and thus covers the truck, which was at the time shelter and place of work.
Essentially, the panel offered various questions to the appellant’s attorney in a bid to seek clarification. The first question was whether or not the truck had to be plugged to electricity to work. In response to this question, the attorney stated that Nodelle had the option of using the generator and that his client and her mother both testified that at all times they noticed humming while inside the vehicle. This conditions, according to the attorney, showed that the car was indeed independent as premises. Significantly, the panel asked whether under the same circumstances a client who bought food and sheltered inside a vehicle would be allowed to charge for compensation in case of poisoning (DCA, YouTube). The attorney affirmed that the car would be treated as a premise concerning its inherent nature and causative nature as a place for business activity that is stationery.
Appellees argument
The appellees attorney argued that the matter of discussion needed to be based on the exclusion of what insurance policy ought to have covered. In reality, the inherent use of a vehicle is moving and therefore, the car should be considered only as a mode of transportation and nothing more. The judge asked whether just like in the case of the vehicle used in the storage of drugs, a similar approach would be used to refer to the particular purpose of the car (DCA, YouTube). The attorney specifically said that the case referred to was different and that it should not be used as precedence.
Further, the judge asked whether in the attorneys view the use of that particular exclusion was wrong in the case of reference. Significantly, the argument was that the primary use and purpose of the vehicle is its inherent use. Hence, unless the car was moving or in the course of transportation, her client should not take any responsibility for the damage caused (DCA, YouTube). In essence, the exclusion and definition as a premise were wrong as the vehicle was not a house.
Appellant’s rebuttal
Mostly, the argument was that the language in the policy, in reality, is when used as premises or residential place. This fact is to mean that it is not limited to use as a shelter. Additionally, according to the attorney, the merchandise case as referred to in this case, dwells on the specific use of the vehicle rather than it being located somewhere or parked. The panel judge however clarified that the policy went father to add the phrase, “located for use.” (DCA, YouTube).According to the attorney, the truck was located there only for one hour, which means that it would be unfair to rely on one definition while the case law has various meanings of premises and use. Further, the judge asked whether or not the description that includes the phrase “located for use “makes a difference (DCA, YouTube). However, the appellee emphasized that the description made no difference as the matter of discussion was the damage caused which is existent.
Conclusion
Significantly, the court ruled in favour of Geico insurance company affirming there were no losses to be paid. Primarily, the company was not liable since the injuries were not necessarily caused by the truck under its intended use. This decision is agreeable as facts separate the company’s responsibilities from the damage caused by an uninsured vehicle or one that was not operational in terms of its use.