 |
 |
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
ussing Centennial, our Supreme Court has since explained that there was nothing there to show the movement of the vehicle had any causal connection with the gun's discharge; that the gun touched any part of the vehicle; or that any factor contributed to the discharge other than the passenger's abortive attempt to empty the weapon. Thus, quite properly, the vehicle was deemed no more than the {mere} situs of the accident.
Similarly, in Culp, the driver accidentally discharged a shotgun after getting out of the vehicle, injuring a passenger who had also exited the vehicle. This court noted that '{t}here was no reason to believe the gun discharged while being unloaded from the pickup, or that it discharged due to coming in contract with the pickup.' With no causal connection between the vehicle and gun's discharge, this court determined that 'the vehicle was the mere situs of the accident.'
Here, unlike Centennial and Culp, the ATV was more than the mere situs of the accident. Brothers' use of the ATV causally contributed to McCauley's injuries. Brothers was attempting to unhook one end of a bungee cord from the ATV when it snagged the trigger, discharging the rifle that caused the injury . The vehicle, and Brothers' use of it, causally contributed to the accident.
Reasonable Expectation of Coverage
Again relying on Centennial, Metropolitan also argues that the discharge of Brothers' rifle under these circumstances was not a 'motoring risk' that the parties would reasonably have expected to fall within the coverage of the auto policy. We disagree.
In denying coverage, the Centennial court determined that attempting to eject shells from a weapon while riding in a moving vehicle 'is not normally anticipated,' and that the parties to the insurance contract had not intended to cover the risk that flowed from that act. Regardless of the validity of that comment in that case, it has no application here.
Here, the ATV was equipped for off-road use with a permanent rack attached to it for transporting supplies and equipment. Regardless of the wisdom of transporting a loaded rifle in this manner, the act of removing a rifle from the ATV's rack was 'a natural and reasonable incident or consequence of the use of the vehicle on a hunting trip.' We reject the notion that this risk was outside the reasonable expectations of the parties to the policy.
Because of our disposition of the coverage question, we need not determine whether Brothers' statement that 'the bumpy ride back to camp' may have caused the rifle's safety to switch to the off position is sufficient to defeat summary judgment. Here, movement of the vehicle is irrelevant to the question of coverage.
Attorney Fees and Costs
The McCauleys request attorney fees and costs on appeal under RAP 18.1. An insured that successfully litigates an insurance coverage issue is entitled to recover attorney fees and costs from its insurer. The McCauleys are entitled to fees under Olympic Steamship, subject to their compliance with RAP 18.1. That case also serves as the basis to deny Metropolitan's request that we set aside the judgment for fees below. We affirm the summary judgment order.
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.
|
|