The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has issued a decision that may serve as a roadmap for the type of analysis that insureds and insurers – and trial courts – can engage in when considering whether an insured is entitled to uninsured motorist benefits in an auto accident involving multiple vehicles.
The Case
As the Eighth Circuit explained, Roger Cottrell was driving north on a highway when he approached an access road crossing. Mason Baumgarte was stopped on the access road on Mr. Cottrell's right-hand side preparing to cross the highway. Mr. Baumgarte intended to cross over the two northbound lanes on the access road, onto the median, and then enter southbound traffic.
Facing Mr. Baumgarte on the access road, stopped in the median, was a brown car apparently preparing to enter northbound traffic.
Mr. Baumgarte said that he saw the driver of the brown car wave to him in a manner that Mr. Baumgarte interpreted as permission to cross the highway before the brown car driver would complete his turn into northbound traffic. Mr. Baumgarte also saw Mr. Cottrell approaching the intersection.
Mr. Baumgarte said that he believed he “had enough distance to where [Mr. Cottrell] wouldn't have been a problem” and that he “could have got across [the northbound lanes] safely.”
After double-checking traffic, Mr. Baumgarte began across the northbound lanes towards the median. As he crossed the highway, he said, the brown car pulled into the left northbound lane, momentarily blocking Mr. Baumgarte's passage, causing Mr. Baumgarte to either slow down or completely stop – right in front of Mr. Cottrell. Mr. Cottrell T-boned Mr. Baumgarte. The brown car drove away in the northbound lane, and its driver was not identified.
When interviewed about the accident, Mr. Cottrell stated that he saw Mr. Baumgarte before he pulled out into the intersection. In response to a question about whether he could “slam on [the] brakes, swerve, [or] do anything like that” to avoid the collision after Baumgarte pulled onto the highway, Mr. Cottrell said “[t]here was no time.”
Another driver, Silvia Louise Rousan-Elliott, saw the accident. When interviewed by police at the scene, Ms. Rousan-Elliott said that the brown car “led to the collision.”
Mr. Cottrell filed a claim with his auto insurer, American Family Mutual Insurance Company, seeking compensatory damages for bodily injury under his policy's uninsured motorist provision. American Family denied the claim after Mr. Baumgarte's insurance carrier assessed Mr. Baumgarte 100 percent of the liability for the accident and agreed to pay Mr. Cottrell's property damage.
Mr. Cottrell sued American Family.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted summary judgment in favor of American Family, ruling that it did not owe uninsured motorist coverage to Mr. Cottrell. The district court concluded that Mr. Baumgarte's actions were both the actual and the proximate cause of the accident.
Mr. Cottrell appealed to the Eighth Circuit. He argued that disputed issues of material fact made summary judgment inappropriate and that the unidentified third party on the road at the time of the crash was a proximate cause of the accident.
The Eighth Circuit's Decision
The Eighth Circuit reversed, finding that material facts remained disputed as to whether the brown car's actions were a proximate cause of Mr. Cottrell's wreck with Mr. Baumgarte, making summary judgment inappropriate.
In its decision, the circuit court explained that the district court determined that even if the brown car's gesture to Mr. Baumgarte to enter the roadway was negligent, Mr. Baumgarte's subsequent act of entering the highway was an intervening act that severed the brown car's liability and became the sole cause of injury.
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].