No connection found between vehicle's covered "uses" and assault on owner

Subsequently, the woman sought coverage for her injuries under the uninsured motorist and personal injury protection portions of her auto insurance policy. The insurer denied the claim and sought a declaration that its policy did not cover injuries arising from the assault.

After a trial court and a court of appeals both ruled in favor of the woman, the Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari (permission to review) on the question of whether injuries caused by a sexual assault in an automobile are injuries "arising out of the operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle" for purposes of triggering the personal injury protection or uninsured/underinsured automobile insurance coverage of an auto insurance policy.

Earlier cases in the state interpreted the phrase "arising out of the use" of a motor vehicle as requiring some causal connection between the "use" of the motor vehicle and the injury complained of. While occasionally referred to as a "but for" causal test (but for the use of the vehicle, the injury wouldn't have occurred), the court had always required a claimant to show something more than a mere "but for" relationship, although something less than proximate cause in the tort sense. The court also was careful to point out that for coverage to exist, the connection must guarantee "that the accident is within the kind of risks that the automobile insurance contract was meant to cover."