No connection found between vehicle's covered "uses" andassault on owner

Subsequently, the woman sought coverage for her injuries underthe uninsured motorist and personal injury protection portions ofher auto insurance policy. The insurer denied the claim and soughta declaration that its policy did not cover injuries arising fromthe assault.

After a trial court and a court of appeals both ruled in favorof the woman, the Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari(permission to review) on the question of whether injuries causedby a sexual assault in an automobile are injuries "arising out ofthe operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle" for purposesof triggering the personal injury protection oruninsured/underinsured automobile insurance coverage of an autoinsurance policy.

Earlier cases in the state interpreted the phrase "arising outof the use" of a motor vehicle as requiring some causal connectionbetween the "use" of the motor vehicle and the injury complainedof. While occasionally referred to as a "but for" causal test (butfor the use of the vehicle, the injury wouldn't have occurred), thecourt had always required a claimant to show something more than amere "but for" relationship, although something less than proximatecause in the tort sense. The court also was careful to point outthat for coverage to exist, the connection must guarantee "that theaccident is within the kind of risks that the automobile insurancecontract was meant to cover."

In reviewing the case at hand, the court said that the use ofthe reclining passenger seat to prevent the plaintiff fromsignaling for help, the use of the vehicle to get to an isolatedarea to commit a crime, and the use of the automatic seat belts asrestraints were all "foreign to the inherent purpose" of the motorvehicle. The court said those uses, whether viewed individually orcollectively, were not "uses" as contemplated by both the statutesand insurance policies in question.

The court concluded that the facts did not establish a causalnexus between a covered "use" of the vehicle and the victim'sinjuries. The woman argued that her opening of the car door madethe ensuing trapping and assault possible, establishing the "butfor" connection, and that the assailant had not chosen her as avictim until she opened her car door.

Even assuming this constitutes a covered "use" of the car, thehighest court said, the relationship between this use and theresulting sexual assault was simply too tenuous, and the othernon-covered uses of the car interrupted any direct flow betweenthis "use" and the injury. The use of the car, the court said, andthe injury were not causally linked so as to make the use of thecar and the injury one ongoing assault.

The court held that "(1) where the motor vehicle is being usedin a manner reasonably foreseeable at the time the partiescontracted for the insurance and (2) the "use" of the vehicle isinextricably linked to the plaintiff's injury, the plaintiff isentitled to recover. Both because we conclude that the use was notreasonably foreseeable and because we conclude that the sexualassault had an insufficient causal nexus with use of the vehicle,we now hold that the plaintiff's policy did not cover her injuries.Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeals, and return this caseto the trial court with directions to enter summary judgment on(the insurer's) motion."

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. vs. Kastner, No.02SC258 (Colo. 10/14/2003) 2003.CO.0000292 (www.versuslaw.com).