Assault by Taxi Driver Not Caused by “Use” of Insured Taxi

 

In Morell v. Star Taxi, 2009 WL 2526158 [C.A.6 (Ky.)], taxi passenger Morell claimed she took a Star Taxi cab home and that the taxi driver dropped her off in front of her home but then followed her into her apartment and raped her. She alleged both physical and emotional injuries as a result.

 

Star Taxi was insured by American. Morell brought suit in state court against both Star Taxi and American. She sued Star Taxi for claims of negligent hiring and supervision and vicarious liability. In her claim against American, Morell sought a declaratory judgment that the American Auto Policy purchased by Star Taxi from American provided coverage for any damages she might recover in her tort action against Star Taxi. American removed the case to federal district court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. American filed a counterclaim against Morell and a crossclaim against Star Taxi for declaratory judgment. American also raised standing as an affirmative defense.

 

After determining that Morrel had standing to directly sue American for damages sustained from the taxi driver's alleged rape, the United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, held that under Kentucky law, Morrel's injuries from the alleged rape at her private residence by the taxi driver did not arise out of the “use” of a motor vehicle as defined under the terms of Star's insurance policy. Because Morrel was not the victim of a motor vehicle accident, the court determined that the taxi did not contribute to her injuries and that Morell had relinquished any connection she had to the taxi and had undertaken a new direction of activity prior to the alleged rape.

 

Editor's Note: This decision gives further weight to the fact that, under Kentucky law, courts evaluating whether a claim arises out of the “use” of an auto will also consider the causal connection between the operation of the vehicle and the injury—not simply the claimant's physical association with the vehicle.