Subsequently, the woman sought coverage for her injuries under the uninsured motorist and personal injury protection portions of her auto insurance policy. The insurer denied the claim and sought a declaration that its policy did not cover injuries arising from the assault.
After a trial court and a court of appeals both ruled in favor of the woman, the Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari (permission to review) on the question of whether injuries caused by a sexual assault in an automobile are injuries "arising out of the operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle" for purposes of triggering the personal injury protection or uninsured/underinsured automobile insurance coverage of an auto insurance policy.
Earlier cases in the state interpreted the phrase "arising out of the use" of a motor vehicle as requiring some causal connection between the "use" of the motor vehicle and the injury complained of. While occasionally referred to as a "but for" causal test (but for the use of the vehicle, the injury wouldn't have occurred), the court had always required a claimant to show something more than a mere "but for" relationship, although something less than proximate cause in the tort sense. The court also was careful to point out that for coverage to exist, the connection must guarantee "that the accident is within the kind of risks that the automobile insurance contract was meant to cover."
In reviewing the case at hand, the court said that the use of the reclining passenger seat to prevent the plaintiff from signaling for help, the use of the vehicle to get to an isolated area to commit a crime, and the use of the automatic seat belts as restraints were all "foreign to the inherent purpose" of the motor vehicle. The court said those uses, whether viewed individually or collectively, were not "uses" as contemplated by both the statutes and insurance policies in question.
The court concluded that the facts did not establish a causal nexus between a covered "use" of the vehicle and the victim's injuries. The woman argued that her opening of the car door made the ensuing trapping and assault possible, establishing the "but for" connection, and that the assailant had not chosen her as a victim until she opened her car door.
Even assuming this constitutes a covered "use" of the car, the highest court said, the relationship between this use and the resulting sexual assault was simply too tenuous, and the other non-covered uses of the car interrupted any direct flow between this "use" and the injury. The use of the car, the court said, and the injury were not causally linked so as to make the use of the car and the injury one ongoing assault.
The court held that "(1) where the motor vehicle is being used in a manner reasonably foreseeable at the time the parties contracted for the insurance and (2) the "use" of the vehicle is inextricably linked to the plaintiff's injury, the plaintiff is entitled to recover. Both because we conclude that the use was not reasonably foreseeable and because we conclude that the sexual assault 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 case to 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).
© Arc, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to TMSalesOperations@arc-network.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.