Thank you for tracking me down and for the EXCELLENT comment. You are doing exactly what I tell cyclists to do. Call around. Ask questions about the application of insurance to your cycling passion. See what the agents tell you.

Nationwide has taken the position that the language of their medical payments coverage, which is pretty much the same as everyone else’s, does NOT cover you if you are hit by a car while riding your bike. Virtually every other auto insurer will cover you. I have had this come up time and time again. I have a case pending now in the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court where we are going to test this legally. When I have asked Nationwide about this policy, the adjustors have cited a few old cases.

The key case is Schroeder v. Auto Owners. Mrs. Schroeder was hit by a car while riding her bicycle. Defendant turned down her UM/UIM claim on the basis of the word “pedestrian” in the policy – claiming that a cyclist was not a pedestrian and, thus, not entitled to coverage. The parties briefed the issue extensively, including the submission by the plaintiff of many other policies which provided coverage under similar language while arguing that “customary meaning and trade usage” must be considered. The trial court held the word “pedestrian” was to be read sufficiently broadly as to capture those insureds riding a bicycle at the time they got whacked by a car. The 6th App. District agreed and upheld the decision.

While Schroeder was a UM case, not a med pay case, it dealt with the word “pedestrian” in an auto policy and held that that word INCLUDES cyclists. The cases cited by Nationwide don’t have anything to do with insurance. Rather, they are traffic or criminal cases that look at the definition of “pedestrian” in the Ohio Traffic Code, which says “a person afoot.” From a traffic perspective, cyclists are VERY different from pedestrians. From an INSURANCE perspective, however, the intent of Med Pay and UM provisions is to provide protection for the insured in the event an errant motorist runs you over.

To me, the answer is clear. Schroeder is actually ON POINT while the old case on which Nationwide always cites is not. Schroeder was an AUTO INSURANCE case where coverage was denied based on the issue of whether a victim/insured on a bicycle constituted a “pedestrian.” The case cited by Nationwide has nothing to with insurance. Schroeder is a 2004 appellate decision on the very point raised here. I submit it is controlling on this issue. What OTHER configurations of person/device would not be “pedestrians” in Nationwide’s eyes? Is someone on crutches not a pedestrian? Roller skates? Riding a “Razor” scooter. In a wheelchair? Are those people to be denied coverage if they are run over by a car?

Speaking of wheelchairs, Schroeder was cited and relied upon in Lakewood v. El Hayek, a muni court decision interpreting the word “pedestrian” in a crosswalk. The court decided that a man on a motorized scooter was NOT a pedestrian, but recognized the validity of Schroeder, stating that a “person operating a bicycle was held to have the same protections as a pedestrian” in Schroeder.

THANKS!

I was trying to get an auto insurance that covers hit-n-skip bike accidents using the “UM/UIM” coverage. Do all insurance companies automatically cover bike accidents as well?

I called Nationwide to verify and the guy said (after consulting somebody) that UM/UIM as well as Medical coverage ($10k limit) applies only if I am in a motorized vehicle. If I am on bicycle, they are not going to cover and I have to use my health insurance. Can you recommend any auto insurance companies that are bike friendly?

Cheers