Case Law Watch

Auto Liability
American Freedom Insurance Co. v. Uriostegui
(Ill. App., 1st Dist., July 13, 2006)

Ruling: Insured’s regular use of auto barred coverage under non-owned auto policy. The court considered whether an automobile policy for “non-owned automobiles” covered the insured, who admitted to using the vehicle as his main form of transportation. The court held that the vehicle was provided for the insured’s regular use and that he indeed regularly used the vehicle at his discretion. Therefore, the court held that the insurer was not obligated to defend or indemnify the insured in the underlying action.

Pennsylvania General Insurance Co. v. Zurich Insurance Co.
(Super. Ct. N.J. July 14, 2005)

Ruling: Use of Auto decision made. Contractor and insured were sued for negligence when a motor vehicle hit the insured’s illegally parked vehicle. Questions of fact existed regarding whether contractor, who instructed auto policy insured regarding where to park, was “user” of automobile. If the contractor did fail to appropriately instruct the insured where to park the truck, the contractor would be deemed a “user” of the vehicle, and, therefore, insured under the auto policy.

Auto–Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage
Sterling v. Ohio Casualty Insurance Co.
(Fla. App., 2nd Dist., July 21, 2006)

Ruling: Insured’s son not entitled to UM coverage under business auto policy. Insureds filed a declaratory judgment action against underinsured motorist carrier to recover damages for their son’s injuries. The underinsured motorist coverage was provided on a business auto policy issued to the husband for coverage in connection with his backhoe business. The court held that the policy did not cover the insured’s minor son when, as a pedestrian, he was struck by an underinsured motorist. In so ruling, the court held found that a business automobile insurance policy issued in Florida insuring exclusively business or commercial vehicles is not statutorily compelled to use a definition of “insured” that would provide uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage to a family member of the owner of the insured commercial vehicle when the family member is struck as a pedestrian.

Lambert v. Coregis Insurance Co.
(Ala. July 28, 2006)

Ruling: Employee not “occupying” vehicle under UM policy. Employee sued employer’s UM insurer for benefits after he was struck by oncoming vehicle while standing between his employers’ trucks. The court held that the employee was not entitled to UM benefits because he was not “occupying” his employer’s vehicle when the accident occurred, and, therefore, was not an insured under the policy. The court held there was no causal connection between the employee’s injuries and use of his employer’s vehicle; the employee was merely standing on the side of the road waiting for his colleague to complete a task when the accident occurred.

was compiled by the New York-based law firm of Goldberg Segalla LLP and edited by Kevin T. Merriman, kmerriman@goldbergsegalla.com.