 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Allstate Insurance Co. v. Grimes11/8/2004
it originated with maintenance of the truck. Watts, 811 S.W.2d at 885. This is also known as the "but-for" theory.
Whether Allstate was obligated to provide coverage hinged upon two opposing theories: the "concurrent cause doctrine" on which Crafton relied, and the "chain of events doctrine" on which Allstate relied. Watts, 811 S.W.2d at 885-886. Our Supreme Court rejected the "chain of events doctrine" adopting instead the "concurrent cause doctrine," stating:
It is true that "arising out of" is an extremely broad phrase, so broad, in fact, that it is difficult to conceive of a rule that draws a justifiable line between coverage and no coverage at any reasonable point. Adopting Allstate's interpretation of "arising out of" to include any causal relationship would exclude coverage if, for example, Watts had gone into Crafton's home to retrieve a tool to aid in removing the lug nuts, and fell down a flight of stairs. Arguably, at least, maintaining the vehicle would have set in motion the chain of events that produced the eventual result. That is, but-for the difficulty encountered in maintaining the brakes on the truck, Watts would not have been inside of the home when he fell in order to obtain the tool. The problem with this approach is that cause and effect extend to near infinity. It is for this reason that we reject the "chain of events" theory of application which appears to hinge on a "but-for" theory of causation utilized by the Court of Appeals and urged by Allstate.
Watts, 811 S.W.2d at 887.
The Supreme Court agreed with Allstate that using the torch to repair the truck and ultimately causing the fire constituted maintenance and was excluded for it held that "using the torch in the manner described here would constitute an excluded risk under the policy if standing alone." Watts, 811 S.W.2d at 888. However, the Court also found that other causes of the injury existed which were not excluded from coverage:
This does not mean, however, that we can simply ignore the presence of other causal factors involved - the placement of the flammable substance, Crafton's purported failure to warn of the substance upon specific inquiry, and the negligence in dropping and kicking the burning liquid - all of which are insured risks that the insuror was willing to accept a premium for and are the acts that comprise the basis of the lawsuit brought by Watts against the insured as evidenced by the allegations in the complaint itself. It appears that the complaint is not predicated upon a cause of action or risk which would be excluded by the policy, but rather negligence. See Engeldinger v. State Auto. & Cas. Underwriters, 236 N.W.2d 596, 600-01 (Minn.1975). Further, simply because there might arguably be a mere connection between using the torch and the ultimate harm, does not justify a finding of no coverage when other causal factors played a substantial role in producing the loss complained of by Watts. Travelers, 491 S.W.2d at 367.
Watts, 811 S.W.2d at 888.
This court's opinion in Planet Rock, Inc. v. Regis Insurance Company, 6 S.W.3d 484 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) provides further guidance concerning the chain of events defense as it pertains to an assault and battery exclusion. In Planet Rock, a nightclub patron was seriously injured in a fight with two other patrons. The fight occurred outside the club, in a nearby parking lot. The victim, who was knocked unconscious in the fight, was brought back into the club by employees of the club. He was placed on a couch in one of the offices where he subsequently died. The parents of the victim brought an action against Planet Rock alleging inter alia that its employees were negligent in t
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|