An appellate court in Minnesota has ruled that a woman was entitled to recover no-fault benefits from her insurance carrier after she fell into a trench while trying to enter her car.
The Case
Nancy Bach left a restaurant and walked to a car that was parked in a lot across the street. Her husband, waiting in the car, drove forward and opened the car door for her.
Ms. Bach put her hand on the car door frame and attempted to enter the car, but tripped and fell into a trench in the parking lot.
Ms. Bach fractured the fibula in her left leg as a result of the fall and incurred medical expenses in excess of $20,000.
Initially, Ms. Bach's health insurer paid her medical expenses. Ms. Bach sued the parking lot owner and settled for $67,500. Her health insurer exercised its subrogation rights and recovered some of the medical expenses it had paid from Ms. Bach's settlement with the parking lot owner.
At the time of the accident, Ms. Bach had no-fault coverage through her automobile insurance policy with Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company. She applied for no-fault benefits related to her injury, and Liberty Mutual denied the claim.
Ms. Bach sued Liberty Mutual, seeking a declaration that she was entitled to no-fault benefits under her policy. The trial court granted Ms. Bach's motion for summary judgment, eventually awarding her $39,626.50.
Liberty Mutual appealed.
Minnesota's No-Fault Law
Minnesota's no-fault law requires reimbursement for all loss suffered through injury arising out of the
maintenance or use of a motor vehicle
, defined to include
occupying, entering into, and alighting from [the vehicle]
The Minnesota Appellate Court's Decision
The appellate court affirmed, finding that Ms. Bach had a covered claim for no-fault benefits.
In its decision, the appellate court first decided that Ms. Bach had established a “sufficient causal connection between the use of a motor vehicle and her injury.” It reasoned that she was entering the vehicle for transportation purposes at the time she fell, and tripping was a “natural and reasonable” consequence of using the motor vehicle. Ms. Bach, the appellate court added, “tripped and fell into the trench – in a parking lot – because she was entering the car.” Ms. Bach was “physically in contact with the vehicle and attempting to enter it when she sustained her injuries,” the appellate court added.
Next, the appellate court found that no intervening act had broken the causal link between Ms. Bach's use of the motor vehicle and her injuries, rejecting Liberty Mutual's argument that the trench was an intervening act. In the appellate court's view, the trench was “closely linked to the automobile.”
Because Ms. Bach also was using the vehicle for transportation, the appellate court concluded that the trial court had correctly determined that her claim was covered as an injury arising out of the use of a motor vehicle under the state's no-fault act.
The case is Bach v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., No. A17-1814 (Minn. Ct.App. June 11, 2018). Attorneys involved include: Matthew Brenengen, Brenengen Law Offices, St. Louis Park, Minnesota (for respondent); Brendan R. Tupa, Law Offices of Thomas P. Stilp, Golden Valley, Minnesota (for appellant).
Steven A. Meyerowitz
Steven A. Meyerowitz, a Harvard Law School graduate, is the founder and president of Meyerowitz Communications Inc., a law firm marketing communications consulting company. He may be contacted at [email protected].