The Law Offices of James M. Freeman, P.C.

On March 20, 2008, the Third District Appellate Court delivered the opinion of Standard Mutual v. Rogers. In this case the Court addressed the issue of whether or not a driver hit by a bicyclist could make a claim for personal injuries under his uninsured motorist policy that protected against operators of uninsured motor vehicles. Standard Mutual v. Jimmie Rogers, Docket No. 3-07-0138, (Ill. 3rd Dist. 2008).

On September 29, 2005, Jimmie Rogers was stopped at an intersection when a bicyclist collided with his passenger-side window. Apparently, Jimmie Rogers' right eye was injured by glass from the broken window. The bicyclist did not have a liability policy, so Jimmie Rogers filed a claim under his own uninsured motorist coverage.

Standard Mutual Insurance, Mr. Rogers' uninsured motorist insurance carrier, filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a finding that they were not responsible to honor Mr. Rogers' uninsured motorist claim. Both Jimmie Rogers and Standard Mutual filed motions for summary judgment. The circuit court found that Standard Mutual had no duty to provide uninsured motorist coverage because a bicycle did not constitute a motor vehicle.

In upholding the circuit court's finding, the appellate court looked to the definition of a vehicle in the motor vehicle code. The Illinois Motor Vehicle Code defines a motor vehicle as "Every device which is self-propelled and every vehicle which is propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires, but not operated upon rails, except for vehicles moved solely by human power..." 625 ILCS 5/1-146 (West 2004). The court further noted that the Illinois Vehicle Code defines a bicycle as "every device propelled by human power upon which any person may ride, having two tandem wheels..." 625 ILCS 5/1-106 (West 2004). The held that given these legislative distinctions uninsured motorist coverage protecting against operators of uninsured "motor vehicles" could not be extended to protect against uninsured bicyclists.

Motorists in Illinois cannot make claims under the uninsured motorist policies for injuries or damages brought about by uninsured bicyclists.

How does this case apply to bicyclists?

It does not directly apply to bicyclists. It only applies to motorists who seek to make claims under the UM/UIM policies for injuries caused by bicyclists.

Consider the opposite example...

If an uninsured motorist hits a cyclist and the cyclist owns a car and has uninsured motorist coverage, that coverage is activated by the accident with the motor vehicle. I have a number of hit and run accidents involving bicyclists where we are pursuing uninsured motorist coverage because the cyclist owns a car and had an uninsured motorist policy.

What does this mean for cyclists?

As a practical matter it means that if you don't carry liability insurance and you injure someone in the course of operating your bicycle they will probably be forced to sue you personally and any judgment they get will attach to your personal assets. If you have no personal assets to speak of this isn't a huge threat, but in the event that you do have assets such as money, real estate, investments or other property the injured party will be forced to come after those assets to satisfy their claim against you.

As an aside...

I would point out that this decision is in line with People v. Schaefer, in which the 2nd District Court of Appeals held that bicycles were not subject to DUI laws based on their status as human powered devices based largely on the same legislative language.