The question was recently posed to me of whether Comprehensive or Collision coverage applied when a vehicle was damaged as the result of a collision with a pedestrian. In this matter the owner of the vehicle only had Comprehensive coverage. Conventional wisdom is that when a vehicle is involved in a collision with an “animal” (perhaps a deer) that Comprehensive coverage applies.
However when a human being is involved that person is NOT defined as an “animal”. While it is always best to look to the terms of the insurance policy to specifically define coverages there has been some limited case law (outside of New Jersey) which has defined an “animal” and something other than a human being. A collision has been loosely defined as a coming together of two objects.
While the law in New Jersey has always been that the ambiguous terms of an insurance policy are generally to be construed as against the writer of the policy and that the terms are considered to favor coverage for the insured, it is still necessary to parse the language to determine if the answer to a coverage question has already been answered by the policy language.
While the argument can certainly be made that a human being is an “animal” and that the definition of a “collision” (two objects coming together) are somewhat contradictory, the courts that have discussed this issue have conclusively sided with the interpretation that an accident with a person is a “collision” and that only collision coverage would apply. Though this issue has been decided outside the State of New Jersey I would always begin any analysis by reviewing the policy terms before rendering any final opinion. Perhaps in New Jersey a “Person” may NOT be defined as an “Object”.
