 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bredemeier v. Farmers Insurance Exchange6/5/1997
In this action to recover personal injury protection (PIP) benefits under an automobile insurance policy, defendant, Farmers Insurance Exchange (Farmers), appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiff, Audrey Bredemeier, following a trial to the court. We reverse and remand the cause with directions.
While walking through a parking lot at night, plaintiff tripped and fell over a speed bump and was injured. She sought PIP benefits under a policy of insurance issued by Farmers for a vehicle owned by Richard and Joyce Larson. Plaintiff claims that her injuries arose out of the operation or use of the Larsons' vehicle because the position in which the car had been parked caused it to block the light from a fixture on a nearby building that otherwise would have illuminated the speed bump. It is undisputed that the specific purpose of the fixture was not simply to cast light on the speed bump but that, under ordinary circumstances, if the light was not blocked it would have incidently illuminated the speed bump.
The trial court made the following factual findings regarding the accident:
The Larson vehicle obstructed the light that otherwise illuminated the speed bump and . . . a passenger in the Larson vehicle . . . testified that he was very aware of the light illuminating the speed bump and witnessed the light being blocked from illuminating the speed bump after Mrs. Larson parked in the spot that she selected. Because the trial court did not make any findings regarding whether the Larsons' vehicle was properly or negligently parked, we do not dwell on that issue.
It ultimately found "a sufficient nexus between the use of the motor vehicle being parked in that specific location and the reason that [plaintiff] fell" and awarded plaintiff PIP benefits under the Farmers policy.
The sole issue on appeal is whether, as Farmers contends, the trial court erred by finding as a matter of law that the accident arose out of the operation or use of the Larsons' vehicle. We agree with Farmers that the factual findings by the trial court do not support a Conclusion that the accident arose out of the operation or use of the vehicle.
Although the Farmers policy is not included in the record on appeal, Farmers stipulated that it provided at least the minimum coverage required by the Colorado Auto Accident Reparations Act. Section 10-4-707(1)(c), C.R.S. (1996 Cum. Supp.) provides that coverage must be provided for "accidental bodily injury arising out of accidents occurring within this state . . . while a pedestrian if injured in an accident involving the described motor vehicle." (emphasis added)
The parties do not dispute that plaintiff was a pedestrian; they dispute only whether the accident involved the Larsons' vehicle.
The supreme court has concluded that the general phrase "involving motor vehicle" in ยง 10-4-707(1)(c) has the same meaning as the more specific phrase "arising out of the use or operation of a motor vehicle." Thus, in order for mandatory statutory coverage to apply, the plaintiff's accident must have arisen out of the use or operation of the Larson's vehicle. See Trinity Universal Insurance Co. v. Hall, 690 P.2d 227 (Colo. 1984).
Whether an accident is caused by the use of a vehicle must be determined on a case-by-case basis. "An accident occurs 'on account of the use of a motor vehicle' if the injury . . . [out of which] the . . . claim [arose] is causally related to a conceivable use of the insured vehicle that is not foreign to its inherent purpose." Kohl v. Union Insurance Co., 731 P.2d 134, 135 (Colo. 1986). To prove causation under such circumstances, a plaintiff need only show that the
Page 1 2 3 4 Colorado Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|