A bicyclist was seriously injured in Seattle when a car door opened right in front of him. His insurance company denied medical coverage because he was not a pedestrian when injured, and the policy language covered him if injured as a pedestrian. The bicyclist sued his insurance company.
The trial court ruled in favor of the insurance company, holding that the common and ordinary meaning of ‘bicyclist’ does not include pedestrians. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court. The Washington Supreme Court ruled in favor of the bicyclist.
Under Washington law, relevant statutes are read into and become part of insurance contracts. The Court noted that Washington law governing insurance defines a pedestrian as “a natural person not occupying a motor vehicle.” Since a bicycle is not a motor vehicle, the bicyclist was not occupying a motor vehicle.
When determining the meaning of undefined terms in an insurance policy, Washington Courts look to the expectations of the average insurance purchaser and construe insurance contracts in accordance with the meaning understood by the typical purchaser of the insurance. Any ambiguity is construed in favor of the insured. Pedestrian is an ambiguous term as it can have various meanings. The Court concluded, “an insured would expect to be covered when injured in a collision with an automobile whether the insured was walking, skateboarding, using a wheelchair, standing on a sidewalk, sitting on a park bench, riding a bike, or doing something else.”
The injured bicyclist was awarded attorney fees.