Judge rules plaintiff's lack of proximity to insured vehicle during crash excludes him from coverage
An insurance company isn't required to cover a man who was severely injured after he was struck by a vehicle in the process of helping an unconscious motorist.
A federal judge in West Virginia sided with an insurance company, finding it wasn’t required to cover a man who was severely injured after he was struck by a vehicle in the process of helping an unconscious motorist.
In the Sept. 27, 2023, opinion by U.S. District Chief Judge Thomas S. Kleeh of the Northern District of West Virginia, the court granted Westfield National Insurance Co.’s motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiff Tyler J. Carroll’s, finding that Westfield wasn’t required to cover Carroll due to its policy limits regarding physical proximity to the insured vehicle.
While traveling to a job for work, Carroll was injured while helping a motorist who needed aid after they were struck by another vehicle that was uninsured,
Westfield and Carroll both moved for summary judgment, following Carroll’s earlier motion for declaratory relief, where he alleged he was entitled to coverage by Westfield under a business auto policy it had issued his employer, West Virginia Heating & Plumbing.
Carroll alleged he sustained injuries from an on-the-job motor vehicle accident and maintained that Westfield had a duty to cover the accident and the resulting injuries.
Carroll and his supervisor Leonard Bragg were assigned a job in Pittsburgh, and on their way to the job, they observed a car veer into the median and barrel roll into the southbound side of Interstate 79, which caused Carroll to take evasive action in order to avoid physical contact with the vehicles, said the court.
Therefore, Carroll steered the car “to rest on the right-side shoulder of the I-79 southbound lanes.” Carroll went to help the driver of the truck that had crashed, crossing I-79 and finding the man unconscious.
While working to free the unconscious driver, Charles Batton, a car crashed into Batton’s truck, seriously injuring Carroll, including multiple fractures, resulting in an above-the-knee amputation of his left leg, right leg tib-fib fracture, left arm fractures and a skull fracture.
Carroll maintained physical contact would have occurred between the vehicle he was driving and the one that crashed into Batton’s truck had he not taken the evasive action.
According to the court, Batton was insured by State Farm Insurance with liability insurance limits of $25,000 and was deemed uninsured to cover the injuries and damages incurred by Carroll, and the driver who crashed into Batton’s vehicle was uninsured.
Therefore, Carroll requested a declaration that Westfield WVH&P Business Auto Policy No. TRA-4175404 afforded uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage and excess uninsured motorist insurance coverage, which would respond in damages for the claims of Carroll.
Westfield paid Carroll $300,000 in uninsured motorist (UM) coverage and $300,000 underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage under the WVH&P policy for the date of loss. However, according to the court, Carroll’s alleged damages are estimated in excess of $5 million.
Carroll claimed Westfield was obligated to pay him the policy limits of both underinsured and uninsured motorists’ coverage as compensation for the losses and damages he sustained, caused by the acts and/or omissions of Batton, an underinsured motorist, and the driver of the car who hit him, an uninsured motorist.
Carroll claimed that Westfield failed to offer the option of purchasing UM and UIM coverage with the business auto policy and the commercial auto excess policy in the amount equal to the liability limits, and failed to secure a knowing and informed waiver.
According to the court, the policy in question includes a $1 million per accident liability limit, UM and UIM coverage limits of $300,000 per accident, and a commercial excess coverage with liability limits of $2 million and no additional UM or UIM coverage.
Westfield moved for summary judgment, arguing that Carroll wasn’t occupying or using the vehicle at the time of his injuries, and that WVH&P received commercially reasonable offers of UM and UIM coverage from Westfield and exercised a knowing and intelligent decision to reject additional coverage above the $300,000 per accident provided to WVH&P under the policy issued by Westfield.
The court determined that Carroll wasn’t occupying or using the vehicle at the time he became injured, as required by the policy, as he wasn’t “in, upon, getting in, on, out or off” the vehicle at the time he incurred his injuries, he wasn’t occupying the vehicle.
It further noted that Carroll wasn’t in close proximity to the insured vehicle when it was struck, and therefore he didn’t qualify as an “insured” under the policy and wasn’t entitled to UM and UIM coverage.
Carroll’s attorney, Cynthia M. Ranson of Ranson Law Offices, in Charleston, and Westfield’s attorney, Brent K. Kesner of Kesner & Kesner, in Charleston, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Related: