A few weeksago my co-editor, David Thamann, wrote in his blog onPropertyCasualty360.com that he questioned the application of autoliability coverage to injuries caused in drive-by shootings ordog bites, even if autos were used to transportthe shooters or if the dog was in an auto when he bit someone.David's analysis centered on the idea that auto policies aretriggered by injuries caused by the “use” of the auto. He reasonedthat these types of injuries really didn't involve such use.

Typical auto policies do state that they will pay damages forbodily injury or property damage for which insureds are legallyresponsible because of an auto accident. An auto accident typicallyis not defined on these policies. However, standard language doescontinue by defining an “insured” as you (the named insured) orfamily members “for the ownership, maintenance, or use of anyautomobile or trailer.”

To me, the focus must extend past the analysis of the term “use”and focus on the requirement that the injury is causedaccidentally. This is especially true in respect to gunshot woundsthat involve autos. Various courts have dissected this issue. Onecase from the Supreme Court of South Dakota covers the subjectthoroughly in its nine-page decision and subsequent six-pagedissension. That court's discussion involved a hunting-related accident, which is certainlydifferent from a drive-by shooting. The court's reasoning doesprovide guidance for interpreting policy terminology as it appliesto injuries related to use of an auto but not actually caused by anauto.