Occupation of a vehicle implicated through rearranging items inside vehicle while standing outside of it
Rosado v Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 02119 (2d Dept. 2010)
“[An injured person was] standing with his feet on the pavement, reaching with his hands into a side bay of the delivery truck to rearrange empty cases of beer. When the box truck hit the plaintiff, it pushed him approximately 10 to 12 feet, pinning him between his delivery truck and the box truck, until he came to a stop against the first side bay of the truck on the driver’s side.”
“In accordance with the liberal interpretation afforded the term “occupying” (see Rowell v Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 77 NY2d 636, 639), we find, as a matter of law, that the injured plaintiff was “in” or “upon” the delivery truck at the time of the accident such that he was “occupying” the delivery truck within the meaning of the SUM endorsement”
Since the PIP case law seems to track the SUM case law as to use, occupation and operation, do we have an expansion of these terms of art?
A person who parks a truck on the side of the road, exits it and directs traffic is not using or operating the truck
Gallaher v Republic Franklin Ins. Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 01143 (4th Dept. 2010)
“we agree with defendant that the court erred in determining that there is an issue of fact whether plaintiff was covered under the policy as a person occupying the truck. At the time of the accident, plaintiff had exited the fire company’s truck and was directing traffic away from the scene of a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff’s conduct in directing traffic was “unrelated to the [truck]” and was not incidental to his exiting it (Matter of Travelers Ins. Co. [Youdas], 13 AD3d 1044, 1045). Thus, under the facts of this case, plaintiff was not “occupying” the truck within the meaning of that term in the policy”
Use and operation issues are usually fact sensitive and can go either way many times. In this case, the tipping point was that Plaintuff’s actions were not incidental to his use of the vehicle. This fact patter is similar to Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. New York State Ins. Fund, 47 A.D.3d 633 (2d Dept. 2008). But See, Mazzarella v. Paolangeli, 63 A.D.3d 1420 (3d Dept. 2009).
In light of the dearth of no-fault cases, I have devoted this week’s postings to interesting issues that have arisen in Florida no-fault law. Today’s case is from the Florida Supreme Court, and was decided in 1999. It should be noted that the issue of “use and operation” in New York is one that has created numerous conflicts between the Second Department and Third Department.
But, this case is really interesting in seeing how expansive the phrase “use and operation” of a motor vehicle is in Florida.
Blish v. Atlanta Causalty Company, 736 So.2d 1151 (Fla. 1999)
Karl Blish left work on January 6, 1995, drove a coworker home, spent a few minutes at the coworker’s house, and then headed home himself. Blish’s pickup truck had a blowout on U.S. 1 in Brevard County and he pulled over to change the tire. He jacked up the truck and was loosening the lug nuts when he was attacked from behind by several assailants. The men choked and beat him (he testified that he “might have went unconscious”) and stole between eighty and a hundred dollars from his pocket. After the attack, Blish recovered his glasses, did his best to finish changing the tire, and drove home (“I just barely got the tire on and I drove home.“). He did not go to the hospital or call police because he did not think that he had been hurt badly enough (“I was just going to write it off as a loss, I guess.“).
A week later, he experienced severe abdominal pain, was rushed to the hospital in an ambulance, and was diagnosed as suffering from a ruptured spleen, which doctors removed.
Under these circumstances, the actual source of the injury-causing blow is not dispositive–whether it came from a negligent driver in a passing vehicle or a violent group of passing thugs is not decisive. It was the use and maintenance of the truck that left Blish stranded and exposed to random acts of negligence and violence, and he was in the very act of performing emergency maintenance on the vehicle when he was injured.
Acts of violence are an ageless and foreseeable hazard associated with the use of a vehicle–for once a person sets out in a vehicle, he or she is vulnerable. The highwaymen and desperados of bygone times preyed on the wayfarer, and these villains are with us still. Each Floridian today, when he or she gets behind the wheel, faces a variety of dangers: a car-jacking at a stoplight, or a strong-arm robbery at a deliberately staged rear-end collision, or a road rage assault in rush hour traffic, or even a random shooting by an anonymous sniper from an overpass.
The danger is particularly acute when the motorist is stranded as the result of a disabled vehicle. The scenario in the present case is every motorist’s nightmare. Losses resulting from a violent encounter with this ageless road hazard–i.e., the highwayman or opportunistic thug–might reasonably be said to be very much in the contemplation of Florida consumers when they are contracting to purchase auto insurance. The motivation of the assailant–whether it be to “possess or use” the vehicle, or to steal the victim’s wallet or purse, or simply to harm the victim–is a nonissue to the consumer.
Compare, e.g., Hammond v. GMAC Ins. Group 56 AD3d 882 (3d Dept. 2008); Matter of Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, 71 AD2d 1004 (2d Dept. 1979). But see, Mazzarella v. Paolangeli, 63 AD3d (3d Dept. 2009); 1420Trentini v. Metropolitan Property and Cas. Ins. Co., 2 AD3d 957 (3d Dept. 2003).