A Minnesota appeals court ruled that an injury caused by a stalled vehicle loaded on top of an automobile-transport trailer resulted from “maintenance or use” of the vehicle in Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Great West Casualty, No. A04-1591, 2005 WL 1088985 (Minn. App. May 10, 2005).
David Martin drove an automobile trailer carrying used vehicles to Gessell Auto Sales. One of the vehicles was stalled on the top deck of the trailer, and Martin asked Gessell to help him manually unload the vehicle. Martin sat in the stalled car to release the brake while Gessell and a friend climbed up the trailer to pull back on the vehicle. The car rolled back quickly, Gessell jumped back, and his foot slipped between two of the trailer beams, seriously injuring his leg.
Great West Casualty, Gessell's insurer, filed a complaint for declaratory judgment, claiming it was not responsible for no-fault benefits. The district court ruled that the injuries arose from the maintenance or use of the trailer.
The appeals court, however, concluded that the injuries arose from the maintenance or use of the stalled vehicle. The court applied the three-prong test established by the Minnesota Supreme Court for determining if an injury resulted from the maintenance or use of a vehicle: (1) the vehicle must be an active accessory in causing the injury; (2) the chain of causation cannot be broken by an act of independent significance; and (3) provided there is a causal link, coverage exists only for injuries resulting from the use of a vehicle for transportation purposes.
The vehicle met the three requirements, according to the court. The movement of the stalled car caused Gessell to jump and fall between the beams, which provided an element of causation between the vehicle and the injury and met the first criterion. Secondly, the causal chain was not broken. Finally, the vehicle was being used as transportation when the injury occurred.
Because the three-part test applied to the vehicle, the court ruled that the injury resulted from the maintenance or use of the vehicle and that Great West was required to pay no-fault benefits.