One Accident versus Multiple Accidents
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company sought a judgment declaring that several collisions constituted one accident under its insured's policy. This case is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Glover-Shaw, 2016 WL 687180.
Suljic was driving drunk southbound on Broadway. She crossed the center lane and hit Maxfield's car. She then swerved into the southbound left turn lane and rear-ended Kennedy's car. This slammed Kennedy's car into the rear end of Thayer's car. Suljic continued southbound, ran a red light, and hit Price's car which was then hit by Conner's car. All of these collisions occurred in about four to five seconds within about 160 feet.
After all these collisions, the issue of liability insurance arose. Suljic was driving a car owned by and insured to Glover-Shaw. The auto policy provided liability insurance coverage in the amount of $100,000 per accident. Glover-Shaw's insurer, State Farm, filed a complaint for declaratory judgment requesting a declaration that the numerous collisions constituted one accident for the purposes of liability coverage. The trial court denied State Farm's motion and this appeal followed.
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1, noted that under Washington case law, all injuries or damage within the scope of a single proximate, uninterrupted, and continuing cause must be treated as arising from a single accident. So in this instance, the sole question facing the court was whether Suljic regained control of her car at any point during these collisions. If she did, one or more of the collisions may have a separate proximate cause and thus constitute a separate accident for insurance coverage purposes.
The court found that State Farm presented a prima facie case that the collisions shared one proximate cause–Suljic's initial negligence in driving while drunk and losing control of her car. On the other hand, the respondents in this appeal did not adequately respond to the insurer's contentions with specific facts to show that Suljic regained control of the car. Moreover, Suljic's blood alcohol level was above the legal limit and her driving was erratic and dangerous, including veering into oncoming traffic. These facts, said the court, supplied ample evidence that Suljic was not in control of her car.
The facts set forth in State Farm's motion for summary judgment established for the court that Suljic's negligence in losing control of her car was the sole, uninterrupted proximate cause of all of the collisions at issue. Therefore, the appeals court found that the trial court erred in denying State Farm's motion for summary judgment. The trial court's ruling was reversed.
Editor's Note: The Court of Appeals of Washington finds that even though multiple collisions occurred in this instance, there was only one accident for insurance coverage purposes. The court found that the responsible driver never regained a full measure of control over her car so the only proximate and continuing cause of the collisions was her initial negligence that caused her to lose control of the car.