UM Coverage Not Triggered By Transportation of Victim to Site of Assault.
September 10, 2018
The Court of Appeals of Mexico has agreed with a lower courts ruling that the transportation of a minor to another location to commit sexual assault, in a vehicle that is uninsured does not trigger the uninsured motorist coverage because the assault did not arise from the use of the vehicle. The case is Crespin v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., No. A-1-CA-35732, 2018 N.M. App. LEXIS 46 (Ct. App. Aug. 14, 2018).
In 2009, the 14 year-old plaintiff, Jessica Crespin, was texting two men Fabian Fierro and Travis Bainbridge, ages 18 and 19 respectively. Together they made plans to pick up Crespin from middle school. Crespin had participated in sexual relations with Fierro previously, and believed Bainbridge to be her boyfriend at the time of the incident. Fierro drove an uninsured car owned by his mother to the school, with Bainbridge in the passenger seat. Crespin planned to go to the mall with the men and hoped to return to school before class let out at the end of the day. She willingly opened the car door to get in the car, and was not physically restrained or forced to stay in the car. The men drove Crespin to Fierro's home to commit a sexual assault against her. Fierro and Bainbridge were subsequently arrested, charged, and soon after entered guilty pleas. Crespin notified her mother's automobile liability insurance carrier, Safeco Insurance Company of America (Safeco) that she intended to pursue an uninsured motorists coverage claim, as the car she was transported in was uninsured. Safeco denied the claim and Crespin sought a declaratory judgment. The court dismissed the action, and found that the plaintiff had failed to establish that her injuries arose out of the use of the uninsured vehicle.
A three-part analysis to determine whether intentional conduct and its resulting harm arises out of the use of an uninsured vehicle is set forth in a case from 1995 by the New Mexico Supreme Court, called Britt v. Phoenix Indemnity Insurance Co.. The court also relied on cases from other jurisdictions, and determined that the trial court was correct in determining that the injury was not causally connected to the vehicle, as the vehicle was merely used to transport the assailants and victim to the scene of the intentional tort. The court determined that although Crespin was transported in the uninsured vehicle to the scene of the assault, no assault or other harm was caused to Crespin in the vehicle, and she entered and exited the vehicle voluntarily, so the vehicle was not a causal link to the harm. The court affirmed the finding of the lower court in favor of Safeco that the insurance policy did not provide uninsured motorists coverage for the incident at hand.
Editor's Note: The Britt test is comprised of three prongs. 1. Is there a sufficient causal nexus between the use of the uninsured vehicle and the resulting harm, such that the vehicle can be considered to be an active accessory in causing the injury; 2. If the first part is satisfied, did an act of independent significance break the causal link between the use of the vehicle and the resulting harm; and 3. Was the use to which the vehicle was put a normal use of that vehicle, such as transportation as opposed to a gun rest? The court applied the Britt test and determined that although “normal use of the vehicle for transportation purposes” is a necessary element for uninsured motorist coverage, that prong does not by itself satisfy the “active accessory” element. Had the assault occurred to the victim in the uninsured vehicle, the courts decision may have been different.