Low, Ball & Lynch's

WEEKLY LAW RESUME

November 6, 2003 Issue By: Raymond Coates

Uninsured Motorist Coverage - Altercation

California Automobile Insurance Company v. Eva Hogan

Court of Appeal, Second District

(October 29, 2003)

In order to trigger uninsured motorist coverage, the insured's injuries must arise out of the use of an uninsured automobile. In this case, that was the issue where the insured became involved in an altercation with an uninsured motorist while exchanging information following a traffic accident.

John Hogan was involved in a minor automobile accident with a motorcycle driven by an uninsured motorist. Mr. Hogan got out of his car and approached the motorcyclist. While involved in the exchange of information, the uninsured motorist became enraged and punched Hogan in the face, knocking him to the ground, where he hit the back of his head on the pavement. He later died.

California Automobile Insurance Company (CAIC) insured Hogan with automobile liability insurance, including uninsured motorist coverage. Mrs. Hogan made claim for uninsured motorist benefits and was denied. CAIC filed a declaratory relief action, and Mrs. Hogan filed a cross-complaint for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and negligence. The trial court granted the CAIC motion for summary judgment. Mrs. Hogan appealed.

The Court of Appeal affirmed. Uninsured motorist coverage is triggered by an accident arising out of the use of an uninsured motor vehicle. The Court stated that in deciding whether the injury arose out of the use of an uninsured motor vehicle, the "but for" causation test should not be applied. Instead, the Court stated the predominating cause/substantial factor test should be applied. The predominating cause/substantial factor test has been applied by the majority of California decisions that have considered the issue. The Court stated any other decision would mean that the mere fact that a vehicle was present at the site of the injury or was used to transport someone to the scene of an injury would establish coverage. This is not the approach that has been followed by California cases.

After a review of prior California cases, the Court stated that in those cases where coverage was denied, the injuries did not arise from the use or operation of the vehicle. Rather, the vehicle was merely used as transportation of the tortfeasor to the site where the injury occurred and was merely incidental to the direct cause of the injuries. Similarly, in this case, Mr. Hogan's death was the result of the punch he received from the uninsured motorist. The uninsured vehicle was merely a means to transport the uninsured motorist to the site of the injury. In this case, the intervening act of the uninsured motorist broke the chain of causation between the use of the uninsured motor vehicle and the injury.

Mrs. Hogan argued that because motorists are required to stop and exchange information after an accident, this established a minimal causal connection between use of the uninsured vehicle and the injury. However, the Court stated stopping to exchange information was not a cause of the injury.

Finally, the Court noted that cases from other jurisdictions were consistent with the holding of this case. The Court also noted public policy did not support a finding of coverage. In this case, the injury was caused by a criminal assault. Public policy did not support a finding of coverage under an uninsured motorist policy for such an act. The Court therefore affirmed the judgment in favor of CAIC.

COMMENT

This decision is consistent with recent decisions involving altercations that occur following a motor vehicle accident. Automobile policies are generally found not to provide coverage for such events. ____ To order a printed version of this analysis, or change your subscription information, reply to this transmission. Information regarding this and other WEEKLY LAW RESUME TM articles is available from Raymond Coates at

(650) 685-7160, RCoate[email protected] or at WWW.LOWBALL.COM. The WEEKLY LAW RESUME TM is published fifty-two times a year, and is a complimentary publication of LOW, BALL & LYNCH, Attorneys at Law, a Professional Corporation, with offices in San Francisco, Redwood City and Monterey, California.

Gordon Hansen

(415) 981-6670 x226

ghanse[email protected]

____________________

LOW, BALL & LYNCH Attorneys at Law

505 Montgomery Street, 7th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94111

tel (415) 981-6630

fax (415) 982-1634