No UM for injuries occuring during car theft
In Gaither v. Allstate Insurance Company, the Gaithers sued Allstate for bad faith for failing to pay them under their UM coverage. Summary judgment to Allstate was affirmed on appeal.
The Gaithers with their children stopped at a convenience store to get drinks. There was an altercation inside the store and Mr. Ramirez ran out, grabbed Mrs. Gaither, and put a gun to her head. One child was still in the car, but got away; and Mrs. Gaither was able to get away as well. Mr. Ramirez then drove off and crashed the car. Allstate paid for the car and also paid for medical expenses under its medical payments coverage. But Allstate refused to pay UM to the Gaithers for their injuries. The trial court granted summary judgment to Allstate on all claims:
First, the district court concluded that the injuries suffered by the Gaithers regarding the incident with Mr. Ramirez did not “arise out of the . . . use of an uninsured auto,” thus falling outside the scope of UM coverage.
The court further granted summary judgment in favor of Allstate on the Gaithers’ bad faith claim. The court then concluded that Plaintiffs failed to raise any genuine issue of material fact relating to the Medical Payments coverage. Although the Gaithers had submitted bills that allegedly remained unpaid, the court found that they failed to demonstrate how the bills related to treatment regarding the injuries incurred on September 18, 2005.
In order to be covered for UM, there must be injuries caused by an accident, arising out of the “ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle.” The court found there were accidental injuries, but that those injuries did not arise out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the car. In order for the injuries to be causally related to the use of the car, the use of an uninsured motor vehicle must be related to its transportation nature and the injuries must be “connected to that use.” The court discussed the various cases dealing with the issue of when an injury is caused by the car. Eventually, the Court found that the assault took place outside the car; the Gaithers were not injured by any part of the car; the car was not running when the assault occurred; and that therefore, the Gaither’s injuries were not connected to the transportation use of the vehicle. The fact that the assaults occurred while Ramirez was trying to escape was not sufficient to raise a fact question.
The Tenth Circuit focuses on two facts to deny coverage: first, there was no injury to the Gaithers from physical contact with the car; and second, the car was not running at the time of the injuries. Plaintiffs may have been able to survive summary judgment in state court where the standard is higher than in federal court. But the cases are not helpful. To me, it seems that those injured while someone is stealing their car are injured because of the transportation nature of the vehicle, and are arguably entitled to UM coverage. But, without more, the courts seem unwilling to extend coverage.
