The personal auto policy generally covers an insured for the use of any auto. The problem is: what does "use" mean? The FC&S editors get many questions from subscribers asking whether a certain claim involves the use of an auto. Courts around the country offer an infinite variety of interpretations that, while perhaps resolving a particular coverage dispute, really leave the central issue up in the air: What does the use of an auto really involve?

Courts usually say that in deciding whether injuries involve the use of an auto, one has to look to the facts of the particular case to determine any causal connection between the injuries and the use of the auto. However, there are certain guideposts that a court uses in making its final decision on the matter.

First, something about the auto itself must have caused the injury. Second, the injury must be closely related to the normal transportation function of the auto. Unfortunately, these guideposts mean different things to different courts.

Something about the auto itself must have caused the injury. To most people (myself included), that would mean the car has to actually cause the injury. Yet some courts find that drive-by shootings can be covered under an auto policy (under uninsured motorists coverage), or that an insured who has a dog in his car can get coverage under the auto policy if that dog bites someone.

To me, this is a gigantic stretch of the causal connection idea. If Aaron is shot by Brandon, who is driving by in a car, the car did not injure Aaron; the bullet did (A New Jersey court agrees with me). If a dog bites Cassie, that is the cause of the injury, not the fact that the dog happened to be in Deanna’s car. The auto may be in proximity to the injury, but it did not cause the injury. Why is this so hard to understand?

The injury must be closely related to the normal transportation function of the auto. I concede that a person involved in a drive-by shooting is using the car for transportation, and I concede that a dog in a car is being transported somewhere. However, is the injury closely related to the transportation function?

I suppose it comes down to what "closely related" means. I would argue that the car is only incidental to the injuries arising from a gunshot or a dog bite. Both such injuries could just as easily happen if no car was involved in any way. The injuries may be related to transportation, but that relationship is a very distant one.

As I see it, this is the bottom-line question that must be answered in determining whether an injury involves the use of an auto: Did the auto actually cause the injury? That’s it. If courts accepted this bottom line, many coverage disputes would be quickly settled, and perhaps even precluded.

What do you think?

This blog post is meant to provide insights into insurance coverage issues in general, and does not necessarily account for the differences in law and practice in different venues. As such, the opinions expressed within should not be construed as legal advice for the unique circumstances of any particular claim or suit.

Special Reports /

Use of Auto Coverage Issues: Drive-Bys and Dog Bites

Related Stories

Recommended For You