Sentences with phrase «phantom vehicle»
A "phantom vehicle" refers to a car or other vehicle that causes an accident but is not seen or identified by anyone involved. It seems to appear out of nowhere, leaving people confused about what happened. Full definition
Essentially, the law treats that phantom vehicle as an uninsured driver.
millerandzois.com
For immediate help following an accident involving an uninsured driver, an underinsured driver or a phantom vehicle call 816-361-5555 or complete our simple contact form to schedule a free consultation with a lawyer at our firm.
So in a pure uninsured motorist case where the other driver either can not be identified (hit - and - run or phantom vehicle are the most prominent examples) or has no insurance, your own insurance company essentially steps in the shoes of the defendant, assuming the at - fault driver's liability for the accident but also his damages.
It protects you not only from uninsured drivers, but also from hit - and - run drivers, phantom vehicles and drivers who do not have enough insurance to pay for your damages.
Many people do not realize that a hit - and - run accident can include a «phantom vehicle» that runs you off the road - even if they did not hit your car.
But in many other cases, there was no contact and you have a «phantom vehicle» claim.
(2) Georgia courts have enforced a provision in a Tennessee UM policy that required actual physical contact with a phantom vehicle in order to recover under the policy, even though Georgia law allows for an exception to this requirement.
Many states require actual contact with the phantom vehicle in order for a Plaintiff to bring a personal injury claim.
A phantom vehicle, according to insurance companies, is a vehicle that causes a car accident or car accident injury without ever coming into contact with the car that crashes.
In the majority of cases, a phantom vehicle will leave the accident scene in the seconds after causing the crash, making it difficult to prove fault and collect compensation unless witnesses come forward or physical evidence is found.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's opinion last week, saying an insurer had demonstrated prejudice from an uninsured motorist claim in which the policyholder submitted «untimely notice» of a «phantom vehicle» involved in the crash.
Harleysville rejected the claim, seeking «declaratory judgment that he was not entitled to uninsured motorist benefits» while also contending that he «failed to comply with the statutory requirement to notify Harleysville of the phantom vehicle within 30 days.»
«Before an insurer can deny uninsured motorist benefits resulting from an accident involving a phantom vehicle, the insurer must demonstrate prejudice due to the failure of an insured to notify the insurer of the phantom vehicle accident,» the Supreme Court's decision read.
More than eight months later, in June 2002, Vanderhoff filed a claim with Harleysville for benefits under uninsured motorist coverage on the basis that «the accident was caused by a phantom vehicle pulling out in front of Piontowski, causing him to stop suddenly,» according to the court.
Rather, a «phantom vehicle» is traffic - safety legalese that appears in uninsured / underinsured motorist (UM / UIM)...
November 04, 2013 - The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's opinion last week, saying an insurer had demonstrated prejudice from an uninsured motorist claim in which the policyholder submitted «untimely notice» of a «phantom vehicle» involved in the crash.