Mississippi Supreme Court rules worker's fall from scaffolding is 'auto accident'
A worker fell and hit his head on scaffolding erected on a trailer attached to a covered vehicle.
A fall from scaffolding that was built on a trailer attached to an insured pickup truck is considered an “auto accident” under the policy, the Supreme Court of Mississippi ruled in Miss. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Powell, 336 So. 3d 1079 (Miss. 2022).
Anthony Powell erected scaffolding on a trailer attached to his pickup truck for workers to use when installing roof trusses in a barn. After a truss was installed, Powell drove the truck to where the next truss needed to be installed. The truck was parked and turned off while the trusses were installed. Trent Craft and a co-worker were installing the trusses on the day of the accident. When Craft and his co-worker went to have lunch, the co-worker jumped from the scaffolding to the trailer, which rocked the trailer and sent Craft crashing to the trailer bed. Craft’s head hit the trailer bed and severely damaged his eye socket. Craft subsequently filed suit against Powell.
Powell had an auto policy from Farm Bureau that covered both the pickup and the trailer. However, Farm Bureau sought a declaratory judgment that the policy did not cover the incident, meaning the company had no duty to defend or indemnify Powell and was not obligated to pay Craft under medical payments coverage. Powell counterclaimed and alleged wrongful denial of his claim, seeking both damages and a declaration that Farm Bureau owed him a defense. Farm Bureau filed a motion for summary judgment, reasserting that the policy did not cover the accident for either the liability or the medical payments. After a hearing, the trial court denied Farm Bureau’s motion, and Farm Bureau appealed.
Was the vehicle being ‘used?’
Farm Bureau claimed that, since Powell’s pickup was not in motion when Craft fell, it was not “in use” at the time of the accident and therefore not covered. This theory, they claimed, was supported by Alfa Insurance Corp. v. Ryals, 918 So. 2d 1260 (Miss. 2005), where a dead tree had fallen on a car and killed two people. Apart from the fact that Powell’s policy did not specify movement was a prerequisite for coverage, the Mississippi Supreme Court found two problems with this theory. First, Ryals involved UM coverage for a bucket truck that was not present at the time of the accident. Second, the UM policy at issue in Ryals specifically defined “use” as the “actual manual and physical driving of a car.” Unlike the policy in Ryals, Powell’s policy did not define “use.” The justices also pointed out that the liability portion of the Farm Bureau policy covered the loading or unloading of vehicles, so the policy did, in fact, cover stationary vehicles.
Though Powell’s policy didn’t define “use,” it did define “occupying,” which included “getting in, on, out, or off” (emphasis added) the vehicle so long as coverage applied when exiting the vehicle. Craft fell on the way to lunch. There had been no event that separated Craft using the trailer from his fall. There was no dispute over Powell’s ownership of the trailer. Therefore, the justices ruled, Craft’s injury arose from Powell’s use and ownership of the pickup and the trailer.
Was there an ‘auto’ accident?
Farm Bureau claimed that, under the rule of Bryant v. Allstate Ins. Co., 790 F. Supp. 676 (S.D. Miss. 1991), there was still not an “auto accident” within the meaning of Powell’s policy. In Bryant, a third party fired multiple shots at the work van Mr. Bryant was driving, which damaged the van and injured Bryant. The comprehensive liability portion of the auto policy covered the damage to the van in that case, but the policy did not cover Bryant’s injuries because the van was merely the location of the injury and had no actual connection to the accident.
Based on Bryant, Farm Bureau said an “auto accident” meant “a situation in which an automobile, being used as a means of transportation, is involved in some type of collision or near collision with another vehicle, object, or person” (emphasis original). The court immediately rejected this idea. The phrase “being used as a means of transportation” appeared nowhere in Powell’s policy. Adding the definition asserted by Farm Bureau, the justices said, would be “equivalent to rewriting the contract [policy].” Courts will not add language to a policy if it isn’t already present because it changes the meaning of the policy from when it was made effective.
Since adding Farm Bureau’s suggested definition was not a valid solution, the court looked to the dictionary definition of “accident”; Merriam-Webster defined the term as “a sudden event that is not planned or intended and that causes damage or injury.” When this definition was read in context with the definitions of “auto” and “covered auto” found in Powell’s auto policy, the justices found that there had indeed been an accident involving a covered auto and a serious injury on the trailer while it was connected to the covered auto.
Therefore, the judges found, there had been an “auto accident” within the meaning of Powell’s auto policy. The denial of summary judgment was affirmed and the case sent back to the lower court for further proceedings.
Editor’s note: The Mississippi Supreme Court reasoned that, though the terms “auto” and “accident” each have a generally accepted definition within the insurance industry, no such acceptable definition exists for the term “auto accident.” The definition suggested by Farm Bureau in this case restricted Powell’s auto coverage. Since insurance policies are generally interpreted against the drafting party, and insurers write a majority of insurance policies, any interpretation that would narrow the scope of coverage should not fall in favor of the insurer.