We've all seen or been part of multi-vehicle accidents, usually on a limited access highway in rush hour. But when more than one vehicle strikes the same obstacle, is that considered one accident or three? According to a recent court ruling, it depends on the state's definition of "a series of unfortunate events" (with apologies to Lemony Snicket).
A dump box attached to a dump truck owned by Stoney Ridge Top Soil struck and damaged an overpass owned by the New York State thruway authority. After hitting the overpass, the dump box separated from the truck and landed in the highway. Between 30 seconds and five minutes later, the vehicle occupied by the Itzkowitz family struck the box. At some point between a few seconds and 20 minutes later, another vehicle occupied by the Compton family struck the same dump box. Stoney Ridge's insurer, National Liability & Fire Insurance Company, argued that this series of events constituted one accident under the terms of the policy. The claimants, which included the Itzkowitz family, the Compton family and the N.Y. State Thruway Authority Corporation (NYSTAC), countered that three accidents occurred.
National Liability defended Stoney Ridge and offered the $1 million per-accident limit to the combined claimants: NYSTAC and the two families, which totaled 12 personal injury plaintiffs. Considering motions for summary judgment by all parties, the U.S. district court ruled that under N.Y. state insurance law, three accidents had occurred and National Liability was liable for $3 million under the policy. National Liability appealed.
'Unfortunate event' test applies
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit noted that under New York law, the unfortunate event test should be applied in this instance to determine how occurrences are categorized for insurance coverage purposes. The test involves a two-part inquiry, the appeals court explained. First, the operative identity giving rise to liability has to be identified. Second, the court has to consider whether there is a close temporal and spatial relationship between the incidents giving rise to injury or loss, and whether the incidents can be viewed as part of the same causal continuum without intervening agents or factors.
The insurer argued that the policy language providing that all bodily injury and property damage resulting from continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same conditions will be considered as resulting from one accident means the incidents here involved one accident. The Second Circuit disagreed, however, noting that several decisions of the New York Court of Appeals (the state's highest court) showed that it would be arbitrary to draw a hard line at any particular number of seconds or minutes that must elapse before two incidents are distinct accidents.
Instead, the Second Circuit determined that it should consider whether the relative timing of the various incidents played a role in causing any of the incidents. Here, the court said, "no evidence in the record supports a reasonable inference that the relative timing of any of the incidents played a role in causing the events to unfold as they did." In sum, the Second Circuit ruled, "Although the incidents occurred close in time, nothing suggests that the narrow timespan between each incident played a role in causing any of the other incidents."
(Photo by Ari Noe, CEO, OTR Media, who witnessed the accident, as it appeared on vosizneias.com)
Time and space proximity determine
As for the spatial proximity of the events, the court found that the first and second incidents were distinct because they occurred in different locations. The second and third incidents were spatially proximate; however, the spatial proximity of the second and third incidents was not necessarily outcome-determinative. "The unfortunate event test does not dictate that separate incidents are part of the same accident if they meet any one of three criteria—spatial proximity, temporal proximity, or occurrence in a causal continuum. Rather, the test reflects a common sense balancing of the three elements," said the court.
The Second Circuit then turned to consideration of the third element, that is, whether the incidents are part of the same causal continuum. The three incidents in this case shared a common origin: The initial negligence that caused the dump truck's collision with the overpass.
"To be part of the same accident, the operative incidents must be part of the same causal chain," the court said. "Once an incident occurs and that incident does not then cause further injury, the causal chain is broken." In this case, the first incident involved the dump box striking the overpass, separating from the dump truck, and landing in the road. That incident was not responsible for the second and third incidents. When the Itzkowitz vehicle collided with the dump box, a second causal chain started, and when the Compton vehicle struck the dump box, this collision was unrelated to the preceding collision involving the Itzkowitz vehicle.
Therefore, the Second Circuit ruled, the second and third incidents were not part of the same unbroken continuum. That means there were three separate incidents. The ruling of the district court was affirmed.
This case is National Liability & Fire Insurance Company v. Itzkowitz, 2015 WL 5332109.
© 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.