 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
McCauley v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Co.12/24/2001
Concurring: Susan R. Agid, C. Kenneth Grosse
PUBLISHED
Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company appeals a summary judgment order declaring that Michael McCauley is entitled to underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage for an injury he sustained in a shooting accident. McCauley was injured when a rifle discharged while its owner was unloading it from an all-terrain vehicle (ATV). At issue is whether this accident 'arose out of the use of' the underinsured vehicle.
Because the vehicle causally contributed to the injury resulting from the discharge of the firearm, we hold that McCauley is entitled to UIM coverage under Metropolitan's policy. We affirm.
This is the second appeal addressing insurance coverage for McCauley's injuries. In Country Mutual Ins. Co. v. Michael D. McCauley, we affirmed the denial of coverage under the 'unloading' exclusion of his hunting partner's homeowner's insurance policy. Here, we address McCauley's UIM coverage in his policy with Metropolitan. As we explained in our prior opinion:
Dennis Brothers, Mike McCauley, and two of their friends went to Nevada on a hunting trip. Brothers brought along his four-wheel 'all terrain vehicle' (ATV). Eventually, the four friends separated into two groups. After a day of hunting, Brothers placed his loaded rifle atop a backpack.
He then loaded them both on top of a steel rack attached to the front of the ATV. He secured the rifle and backpack by stretching a bungee cord over both and hooking the cord into one of the bars of the steel rack.
When Brothers arrived at camp, he began removing the rifle and backpack from the ATV by unhooking the bungee cord. During this process, the gun discharged, and a bullet struck McCauley. He survived, but underwent several surgeries.
Country Mutual brought a declaratory judgment action to determine whether its policy exclusion for 'unloading' a recreational vehicle applied. We held that it did.
After our decision in Country Mutual, Michael and Deana McCauley sought UIM coverage under their Metropolitan automobile policy. Metropolitan denied coverage.
The McCauleys commenced this declaratory judgment action to establish UIM coverage. Based on stipulated facts, Metropolitan and the McCauleys made cross-motions for summary judgment.
The trial court granted the McCauleys' motion, and denied Metropolitan's. The court also awarded the McCauleys their attorney fees and costs. The parties then entered into a stipulated judgment on damages, in which Metropolitan agreed that it is liable for the policy UIM limit if the summary judgment order is upheld on appeal. This appeal by Metropolitan followed.
Causation
Metropolitan primarily argues that, because there was no direct physical contact between the rifle and either the ATV or any of its permanent attachments, the vehicle did not causally contribute to the accident. Thus, this insurer maintains that McCauley's injuries did not 'ar{i}se out of the use of the' vehicle, and are excluded from UIM coverage. Metropolitan's position is contrary to the law, and we reject it.
When reviewing a summary judgment order, we engage in the same inquiry as the trial court. In doing so, we will consider all facts and reasonable inferences from the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. We will affirm an order granting summary judgment if there are no genuine issues of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
The parties submitted an agreed statement of facts to the trial court for purposes of summary judgment. Because no ma
Page 1 2 3 4 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|