 |
 |
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
n the mere situs of the occurrence. Accordingly, liability attached under the insurance contract, which provided for coverage of an accident arising out of the use of the automobile.
In an attempt to distinguish Transamerica, Metropolitan argues that the bungee cord, rather than either the ATV or any permanent attachment to it, actually touched and discharged Brothers' rifle. This is a distinction without a difference. Transamerica does not require that there be direct physical contact between the vehicle and the weapon. Rather, it requires only that the vehicle or one of its permanent attachments be somehow physically involved with causing the accident.
Here, the ATV causally contributed to produce McCauley's injuries, and was more than the mere situs of the accident. As we explained in a prior portion of this opinion, the vehicle was in use at the time of the accident. It is clear that the rifle and the backpack on which it rested were both secured to the ATV by bungee cords. One end of a bungee cord apparently remained hooked to the ATV during unloading. Brothers stated in his declaration that, as he began unstrapping the bungee cords to remove his rifle from the steel rack of the ATV, 'one of the bungee cords snapped back from its tension, hooked the trigger and discharged the rifle.' He further stated that he believed that 'the metal hook attached to the end of {his} rubber bungee cord' pulled the trigger. This is sufficient to establish a causal connection between use of the vehicle and the resulting injury . That the rifle was resting on top of a backpack, and did not come into direct physical contact with the ATV, does not bar coverage. There is coverage under the insuring provision of the policy.
As decisions after Transamerica make clear, the determinative factor is not whether the weapon discharged due to direct physical contact with the vehicle, but whether the vehicle causally contributed to the injury . For example, in Detweiler, the insured fired his pistol at a thief who was driving off in the insured's truck. The bullets fragmented when they hit the truck, and struck the insured. Applying the Transamerica test, our Supreme Court determined that the vehicle had 'causally contributed' to the insured's injuries. The Court accordingly held that the insured's injuries arose out of the vehicle's use despite the absence of any physical contact between the pistol and the truck.
Our courts have consistently recognized that direct physical contact with the vehicle is not the determinative factor in evaluating whether an accident arises from vehicle use. Of overriding importance is the presence of some sort of causal connection between a condition of the vehicle, a permanent attachment to it, or some aspect of the operation of the vehicle and the accident.
In support of its argument that the ATV was the mere situs of the accident, Metropolitan relies primarily on Centennial and Culp v. Allstate Ins. Co. In each of those cases, this court determined that the firearms accident at issue did not 'arise out of the use of' a vehicle because the vehicles there did not physically contribute towards producing the injury . But those cases are distinguishable.
In Centennial, a passenger in a moving vehicle was attempting to unload his rifle when one of the shells misfired and hit the driver. This court determined that the driver's injury did not 'arise from the use of' the vehicle because unloading a weapon in a moving vehicle was not 'a natural and reasonable incident or consequence of the use of the vehicle on a hunting trip.' This court accordingly determined that the vehicle was merely the coincidental place in which the injury occurred. In disc
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.
|
|