 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
MAINE MUT. FIRE v. AMER. INT'L UNDERWRITERS6/24/1996
olved, and whether liability coverage for the
In concluding that the automobile policy issued by American International provided coverage, the trial court relied on Union Mut. Fire Ins. v. Commercial Union Ins., 521 A.2d 308 (Me. 1987), and Worcester Ins. v. Dairyland Ins., 555 A.2d 1050 (Me. 1989). Both of those cases involved liability coverage disputes between the insured's homeowner's and automobile insurers, and in both cases we upheld judgments determining that coverage was provided by the insured's automobile policy.
In both cases the homeowners and automobile policies were similar to the policies in this case issued by American International (automobile) and Maine Mutual (homeowner's). We concluded in both cases that there was coverage provided by the automobile policy because there was "a causal relationship . . . between the accident or injury and the ownership, maintenance or use of the vehicle." Union Mut., 521 A.2d at 310 (citation omitted). We reasoned that " he causal relationship between the proper use of the vehicle and the subsequent injury need not be the proximate cause of the injury; coverage will be extended if there is a reasonable causal connection between the use and the injury." Id. at 311. In both of those cases, however, the injuries occurred while a vehicle was either being loaded or unloaded, thereby within the "use" of the vehicle as that term was defined in the automobile policy and clearly falling within the "loading or unloading a motor vehicle" exclusion of the homeowner's policy applicable to exempt the homeowner's policy from coverage. Here, by contrast, the injury to Jacob did not occur while the dog was being transported in or unloaded from the vehicle, but, rather, while the truck was being used as a stationary object to which the dog was tied. Indeed, Jacob was bitten a substantial time after the truck was parked and the dog tied to it. Michael's "use" of the vehicle as an object to secure his dog was not directly incidental to the operation of the vehicle and, accordingly, there is an insufficient causal connection between the injury and the use of the vehicle to fall within the terms of the automobile policy.
As to the homeowner's policy, it is not really disputed that unless the exclusion relating to motor vehicles applies, Maine Mutual's policy provides coverage for this The exclusion applies to "bodily injury . . . arising out of . . . the ownership, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of motor vehicles." Consistent with our interpretation of the word "use" in the automobile policy and construing the "use, loading or unloading of motor vehicle" exclusion against the homeowner's insurer, as we must, Maine Bonding & Cas. Co., 538 A.2d at 277, we conclude that it does not apply to exclude from liability coverage the otherwise applicable homeowner's policy issued by Maine Mutual.
The entry is:
Judgment vacated.
All concurring.
Page 1 2 Maine Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|