We are evaluating a suit under the auto dealers coverage form CA 00 25 10 13.
The facts: Claimant's auto was parked in her space, in the condominium where she resides. She was out of town. A neighbor called her to indicate that her car was hit. When she returns to Puerto Rico, she initiated a claim to recover damages to her car. Claimant alleges to have suffered mental anguish due to the loss of use of her car and all this incident.
According to the insurance agreement, the occurrence was property damage. Claimant's auto was hit by another. Considering property damage's definition on the form, we are defending 'under a reservation of rights', because policy will not cover 'mental anguish', cause no 'bodily injury' was suffered by claimant. Policy will cover damage to her car and loss of use.
We would like to have your opinion regarding this matter.
Puerto Rico Subscriber
Under the liability section, the policy pays for "bodily injury" or "property damage" to which the insured applies caused by an "accident" as long as the "accident" results from the ownership, maintenance or use of a covered vehicle.
The relevant policy definitions are as follows:
"Accident" includes continuous or repeated exposure to the same conditions resulting in "bodily injury" or "property damage".
"Bodily injury" means bodily injury, sickness or disease sustained by a person including death resulting from any of these.
"Property damage" means damage to or loss of use of tangible property.
The incident at hand certainly was an accident, and the claimant's vehicle sustained property damage as defined. The claimant was not in the vehicle at the time of loss, so she sustained no physical injury. Unless she has some physical manifestation such as severe nightmares, headaches, or other physical manifestations of stress, we see no signs of bodily injury. Even so, since she wasn't at the scene of the accident, it would be hard to claim that the headaches were the result of the accident she wasn't involved in. There are some forms such as the CG 04 14 that specifically identify mental anguish as part of bodily injury. Since this form does not do that, then it's even clearer that mental anguish cannot be construed as a bodily injury.