This dispute concerns the estate of a pedestrian that claimed entitlement to medical payments under a motor vehicle policy issued by Cincinnati Insurance. The case is Estate of Richerson v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company, 264 P.3d 324 ( Mont. 2011). 

Richerson was injured when a concrete truck, owned by United Materials backed over him. Richerson was caught in the truck's differential or driveshaft and dragged several feet by the truck; he later died from his injuries. Richerson had no physical contact with or other connection to the truck prior to the accident.

 The estate requested medical payments under the auto policy issued by Cincinnati Insurance to United Materials but the insurer denied the claim. The insurer claimed that Richerson did not meet the definition of "occupying", as required by the policy wording, in that he was not in, upon, getting in, on, out, or off the vehicle at the time of the accident. The claimant argued that because Richerson was caught in and transported by the truck, he was upon it and therefore, was occupying the truck, qualifying him as an insured under the policy. The trial court agreed with the insurer and this appeal followed.

 The Montana Supreme Court said that it employed the reasonable connection test to determine whether an injured person is an occupant of a vehicle for purposes of obtaining coverage under the vehicle's insurance. Under this test, the court looked to whether the claimant's activities at the time of the accident were so reasonably connected to the insured auto that, under the law, the claimant could be said to be an occupant within the policy's meaning. And based on this, the court decided that the estate's stance went too far. The court said that the estate's argument requires that virtually any pedestrian injured in a vehicle accident would be deemed to be occupying the vehicle by having been in any way on the vehicle at the moment the accident occurred.

 The court found that Richerson had no contact with or connection to the vehicle other than the accident itself. The truck was not hired by Richerson. He was not working with the truck in any way and was not entering or exiting the truck. He had no purpose or connection with the truck other than the incidental contact that led to his death. This, the court ruled, was insufficient to trigger coverage under the definition of "occupying" in the policy.

 The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Editor's Note: The Montana Supreme Court rules that a person who is run over and dragged by a vehicle cannot be said to be occupying that vehicle. This is another judicial attempt to clarify the extent of "occupying" a vehicle so as to determine whether the auto policy is going to apply to a claim.

 The important point here is that the court said that actual physical contact with the vehicle may be relevant to the coverage test, but it is not a stand-alone test in determining coverage. The court emphasized the reasonable connection test and found that Richerson's activities were just not reasonably connected with the operation of the truck. So, Richerson was not occupying the truck, and this meant he was not an insured under the terms of the policy. 

Originally published November 15, 2011

This premium content is locked for FC&S Coverage Interpretation Subscribers

Enjoy unlimited access to the trusted solution for successful interpretation and analyses of complex insurance policies.

  • Quality content from industry experts with over 60 years insurance experience, combined
  • Customizable alerts of changes in relevant policies and trends
  • Search and navigate Q&As to find answers to your specific questions
  • Filter by article, discussion, analysis and more to find the exact information you’re looking for
  • Continually updated to bring you the latest reports, trending topics, and coverage analysis