In Illinois Farmers Ins. Co. v. Marvin, No. A05-874, 2006 WL 120152 (Minn. App. Jan. 17, 2006), a Minnesota appeals court ruled that a party's injuries were not so far removed from the use of a vehicle, even though the insured vehicle did not directly cause the injuries, to deny underinsured motorist coverage.
Mariese Marvin accompanied Tonya Weigel to Weigel's father's house to pick up some toys. While the two were loading the toys into Weigel's vehicle, Marvin slid off the vehicle's floor and onto the ground. At that moment, Weigel's father, Joseph Betz, backed into Weigel's vehicle. Marvin suffered injuries when she was pinned between the bumpers of the two vehicles.
Marvin settled her claim for her injuries with Betz, but she was not fully compensated and Betz's liability insurance was exhausted. So, she sought the remainder of her claim from Weigel's underinsured motorists carrier, Illinois Farmers Insurance Company.
The court addressed two issues. The first issue was whether Marvin was an occupant of the vehicle for purposes of underinsured motorists coverage.
Minnesota statutes do not define “occupancy,” and the state supreme court had ruled that “the definition contained within the policy at issue shall govern, as long as it is narrower than common usage.” The policy defined “occupying” as being “in, on [or] getting into or out of” the vehicle.
While Illinois Farmers argued that Marvin was not an occupant because she referred to herself and hospital reports referred to her as a pedestrian, the court found that no issue of material fact was raised. The court said that the references were not enough to create a material fact issue and determined that Marvin was an occupant.
The second issue was whether Marvin's injuries resulted from the maintenance or use of a vehicle.
The court applied a three-pronged maintenance or use test to determine if Marvin's situation fell within the definition of “maintenance or use”:
1. The vehicle must have been an active accessory to the injury—not just the place where the injury took place. The court noted, “For a vehicle to be an active accessory does not require that it actively causes the damages; rather, the requirement is satisfied if the injury occurred because the vehicle's use is actively connected with the injury.”
The court concluded that the accident met this prong of the test because being pinned by the vehicle's bumper contributed to the injuries—the vehicle was not merely the site where the injuries occurred.
2. The second part of the test is to determine if an independent act occurred that broke the chain of causation between the use of the vehicle and the injuries. Such an act involves an independent tortfeasor interfering to cause the injury. The court said that Betz committed negligence, and to “determine that his negligence constituted an act of independent significance would be contradictory to the purpose and policy of the UIM statute.”
3. The third prong is to determine how the vehicle was being used at the time of the injury—if the vehicle was being used for transportation purposes. The court found that the victim was using the vehicle as a motor vehicle when the accident occurred.
Thus, the court ruled that Marvin's injuries were covered under the underinsured motorist coverage.