Appeals court considers insurer’s denial after disputed 'hit while parked' damage
Loading...
Summary
Michael Mozu appeals an insurer’s denial after his vehicle sustained damage; the insurer later concluded the damage pattern suggested the vehicle was in motion, while the appellant relied on appraiser notes and gaps in the insurer’s investigation to say the loss was a covered 'hit while parked.'
Justice Peter Sachs presiding. The court reviewed an appeal by Michael Mozu challenging Safety Insurance Company’s denial of a claim the insured described as a hit-while-parked event. Appellant counsel Godson Anosike said the insurer denied the claim on cooperation grounds without showing prejudice and that appraisal reports and shop records supported the parked-hit account.
Justice questioning focused on the absence of a police report, photos of the scene, and other evidence the judge found lacking at trial. The insurer’s counsel, Tom Francis, responded that a fuller investigation and expert inspection revealed undercarriage and front-suspension damage inconsistent with a parked hit and that the insurer was prejudiced when the claimant did not provide accurate information needed to assess liability and exposure.
The appellant pointed to the appraiser’s supplemental report, which the appellate argument cited as noting visible damage to the right-front impact area and the shop’s later replacement of front-suspension components without authorization; the appellant contended the shop and repair timeline explained the discrepancy and that the insurer’s denial was improper without proof of prejudice.
The panel also discussed jury-instruction claims and whether the trial court erred by omitting specific instructions offered by the plaintiff; the insurer said the appellant failed to preserve some objections. The court reserved decision after hearing argument from both sides.
