holding that the physical contact rule in “phantom car” situations was contrary to the purpose of uninsured motorist coverage statutes
How later courts described this case
- holding that the physical contact rule in “phantom car” situations was contrary to the purpose of uninsured motorist coverage statutes
- holding that uninsured motorist coverage is available when an unknown vehicle causes an accident and resulting damages
- discussing various approaches; voiding contact provision on statutory grounds
- protecting the insured party who is injured by another motorist
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*32 DUNN, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
The insurance company clarified what may or may not have been an ambiguity in the statute as to the meaning of “hit and run” by requiring physical contact in its contract before accepting liability. There is nothing in the statute forbidding the company to so limit its coverage.
I join in the dissent of Judge TICE.