Truck Not in Use during Employee Road Rage Incident
Lancer Ins. Co. v. United Nat. Ins. Co., 2008 WL 4694602 (Ga.App.) involved a “road rage” incident between two tractor-trailer truck drivers, Donald Goode and William Porter. Goode was driving on the interstate for his employer when he passed the truck driven by Porter, who responded by accelerating and pulling in front of Goode. The trucks continued to pass each other, and Goode testified that Porter cut him off as he tried to change lanes.
Goode then contacted Porter over the CB radio, complaining about Porter's driving, and Porter instructed Goode to pull over. Porter then stopped his truck on the side of the highway and Goode also moved off the highway, stopping in front of Porter.
Goode exited his truck and approached Porter's vehicle. Rather than getting out of his truck, Porter pulled back onto the highway. Goode, who was still outside of his truck, then saw a vehicle that had been unable to avoid Porter's merging truck lose control and crash into an embankment. John Werner, one of the vehicle's occupants, was seriously injured. His wife, Patricia, was killed in the crash.
Werner sought recovery for personal injuries and wrongful death and sued numerous individuals and entities, including Goode, his employer, and Lancer, the employer's commercial automobile insurance carrier . Werner subsequently filed a third party complaint against United National, the employer's general liability carrier, asserting that if the Lancer policy did not cover the incident then it fell within United National's general liability coverage.
Lancer eventually settled Werner's claims against Goode and the employer, and it reserved the right to litigate the coverage dispute and pursue payment from United National. Lancer then filed a declaratory judgment action, claiming that United National was responsible for coverage.
In finding coverage under the Lancer policy, the trial court focused on the term “use” in the contract. It determined that although Goode was not in his vehicle when Porter pulled back into traffic, the truck was still being “used” at that point. The trial court found that the Lancer policy covered the claims because the Werners' injuries and death “flowed from and grew out of the incident between the two tractor-trailer drivers during the use of the vehicles.”
The Georgia Court of Appeals disagreed for several reasons. First, the term “use” had been defined as “to employ for some purpose.” In addition, Georgia law required a causal connection between the use of the vehicle and the injury sustained. Finally, the Lancer insurance contract revealed no intent to cover this wreck, which occurred while Goode was standing outside his truck, and the wreck was too remote from Goode's vehicle use to fall within Lancer's auto policy.
Therefore, the appeals court reversed, finding that the trail court had erred in finding coverage under the Lancer policy.