2 total
A Cushman Turf-Truckster operated off-road is not an automobile for the purposes of statutory accident benefits.
The respondent was injured while operating a Cushman Turf-Truckster in the course of his employment at a golf course.
He applied for statutory accident benefits from his wife's automobile insurer, the appellant.
The arbitrator found that the turf-truckster was an automobile and that the employer's private accident insurance policy was not a worker's compensation plan, entitling the respondent to benefits.
On appeal, the Director's Delegate reversed the decision in part, holding that the turf-truckster is not an automobile in ordinary parlance and was not required to be insured under the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act or the Off-Road Vehicles Act at the time of the off-road incident.
The appeal was allowed and the respondent was found not entitled to statutory accident benefits.
Turf-truckster found to be an automobile; private employer insurance does not trigger workers' compensation exemption.
The applicant was injured while driving a three-wheeled turf-truckster in the course of his employment at a golf club.
He applied for statutory accident benefits from his wife's automobile insurer.
The insurer denied the claim, arguing the turf-truckster was not an 'automobile' and that it was exempt from paying benefits under section 59 of the Schedule because the employer provided a private insurance plan in lieu of workers' compensation.
The arbitrator held that the turf-truckster was an automobile both in ordinary parlance and under the statutory definition, as it was a motor vehicle required to be insured when operated on a highway.
The arbitrator further held that the employer's private insurance plan did not constitute a 'workers' compensation law or plan' under section 59, and therefore the insurer was not exempt from paying benefits.
