Road Rage Actions not Within Business Conduct

 

Bryant, an owner and employee of Prime Cut Meat Market, assaulted another motorist in an apparent incident of road rage. When the other motorist sued, the insurer denied coverage. This case is The Travelers Indemnity Company v. Bryant, 2012 WL 965091 (Me.). Note that this opinion has not as of this writing been released for publication in the permanent law reports.

 

Bryant was traveling from a campground with his son in a truck that he owned. The side of the truck was emblazoned with decals that said either “Prime Cut Meat Market” or “Meat Market”. While stopped at a traffic light, Bryant exited his truck and approached the driver's side of the Latanowich vehicle. Bryant proceeded to strike Latanowich repeatedly in the head and chest because Bryant “wanted him to know that his driving had put other drivers at risk”. In Bryant's own words, he “took it upon himself to try to set Latanowich straight”.

 

Latanowich and his wife sued Bryant and Prime Cut for assault and battery, false imprisonment, negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The Latanowiches and Bryant agreed to a settlement that included Bryant assigning all of his rights to potential insurance coverage to the Latanowiches. The Travelers Indemnity Company, the auto insurer for Prime Cut, filed a declaratory judgment action and claimed that Bryant was not an insured under its policy for his road rage conduct. The trial court concluded that the auto policy language did not cover the incident and it granted Traveler's motion for summary judgment. This appeal followed.

 

The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine noted that the policy considered employees of the named insured as insureds for acts within the scope of their employment or while performing duties related to the conduct of the named insured's business. Based on the plain language of the policy, the court found that Bryant was not insured either as a partner or as an employee of Prime Cut. Because his assault of Latanowich was not in respect to the conduct of Prime Cut's business, Bryant was not an insured. Bryant's acts were not within the scope of his employment and his assault did not constitute performing duties related to the conduct of Prime Cut's business.

 

Pursuant to the unambiguous language of the policy, the entry of summary judgment for the insurer was affirmed.

 

Editor's Note: Both the trial court and the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine correctly decided that Bryant's assault on Latanowich was not an employee acting within the scope of his employment. Moreover, whether Bryant was driving the truck while on a business trip or on a pleasure trip, intentionally assaulting another person just to “set him straight” about that person's driving could not be covered under any insurance policy that stipulates coverage based on an “accident”, and has an expected or intended injury exclusion to reinforce that requirement.

 

Acting out road rage may make a person feel better emotionally, but that person should not expect his insurance coverage to handle any resulting lawsuits.