Negligence and the Homeowners Policys Motor Vehicle Exclusion – Claims Magazine
ISSUE:
Della agrees to drive her neighbor's toddler to day care. However, she is running late and doesn't put the child in a car seat. While driving to the day care facility, Della is involved in an accident, and the child is injured.
The child's parents sue Della. Their complaint contains two separate negligence counts. The first alleges that Della was negligent in driving too fast for conditions. The second alleges that Della was negligent in failing to put the child in a car seat.
Della seeks liability coverage under both her auto and Homeowners policies. The motor vehicle exclusion in the Homeowners policy provides that coverage is unavailable for bodily injury or property damage "arising out of ownership, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of motor vehicles." Will that exclusion preclude coverage for the parents' claims against Della?
ANALYSIS:
The fact that an accident takes place near a car or is in some way connected with a vehicle doesn't mean that the motor vehicle exclusion will automatically apply. The key to accurately assessing whether coverage is available under Homeowners policies for accidents which appear to be vehicle-related is to determine whether an act of the insured, which was not related to the vehicle, was at least one cause of the accident. The distinction between acts which relate to the use of an auto and those that do not is not necessarily clear. However, two recent cases give useful examples of how the courts are likely to look at these situations.
In Smith v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 531 N.W.2d 376 (Wis. App. 1995), James Baumann and Robert Smith took the Smiths' two sons, Joshua and Jacob, snowmobiling. Baumann and Smith had consumed alcohol before riding their snowmobiles in a field near the tavern. Joshua rode with Baumann. Baumann didn't give Joshua a helmet. When the two snowmobiles collided, Joshua was killed.
The Smiths sued Baumann and State Farm, their Homeowners insurer. State Farm contended that the motor vehicle exclusion applied. Smith countered that the exclusion didn't apply because Baumann's intoxication and failure to provide a helmet for Joshua were independent, concurrent causes of the accident.
The court agreed with State Farm. Baumann's intoxication and failure to provide a helmet weren't independent, concurrent causes of the accident. By themselves, they didn't subject Baumann to liability. Both acts were irrelevant without the operation of the snowmobile, since the injury wouldn't have occurred at all without the operation of the snowmobile.
In Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Davis, 455 S.E.2d 892 (N.C. App. 1995), a six-year-old girl was a passenger in a car owned and driven by her grandmother. The grandmother parked the car across the street from a grocery store. As she approached the store, the granddaughter called out to her and asked if she could come into the store. When the grandmother said that she could, the granddaughter got out of the car, walked around it, and stepped into the road separating the car and the store. As she walked into the street, she was struck by a passing truck.
The granddaughter's guardian brought suit against the grandmother, alleging in part that the grandmother was negligent in supervising the granddaughter. The grandmother had both a Homeowners and an auto policy, and coverage was sought under both.
The court found that coverage was available under both policies. Coverage was available under the auto policy because the grandmother was "using" the auto within the meaning of the coverage provisions of her auto policy at the time of the accident. She was using the auto as a means of transportation to the store. Furthermore, there was a causal connection between the use of the auto and the accident. Because the grandmother parked the car where she did, the granddaughter had to cross the road to get to the store.
However, coverage was also available under the Homeowners policy. The court stated that, as a general rule, coverage will be extended when damage results from more than one cause even though one of the causes is excluded from coverage. Here, the use of the auto was one cause of the injury. However, the grandmother's negligent supervision of the granddaughter as she crossed the street was also a concurrent cause of the accident.
These cases suggest that one way of approaching the question of whether the motor vehicle exclusion in a Homeowners policy applies is by determining whether the injury-causing act could have caused injuries if the vehicle hadn't been present. In Smith, the failure to give the child the helmet wouldn't have resulted in injury without the intervention of the snowmobile. In Nationwide, however, the child could have been injured in the same fashion if she had simply been standing near a street far away from the grandmother's car and the grandmother had negligently told her that it was safe to cross.
Based on these cases, the question that the claims person needs to ask when analyzing a similar problem is: Would the insured's negligent conduct have caused injury irrespective of the presence of the motor vehicle? If use of the vehicle is an active part of the negligence, coverage is probably excluded. If the negligence arose from conduct which would have caused injury irrespective of the vehicle's involvement, coverage may be available under the Homeowner's policy.
CONCLUSION:
Della's Homeowners policy shouldn't provide coverage for the toddler's injuries. Della's failure to put the child in a car seat is similar to the failure to give a child a helmet in Smith v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 531 N.W.2d 376 (Wis. App. 1995). The mere failure to put the child in the car seat wouldn't cause an injury unless the car was involved in an accident.
