When the Motor Vehicle Exclusion Doesn’t Apply in Motor Vehicle Accidents
vehicle and in failing to decide that Bowan was not sporting a seat belt previous to the collision. Judgment was obtained against express scientific Transporters, and an equitable garnishment become later added against the insurance provider by Bowan to gather the judgment. The eastern District Appellate court agreed with the Trial court docket that the loading and unloading a part of the motor automobile exclusion did no longer apply because Bowan become now not “property.” The Bowan opinion observed that the whole exclusion did no longer apply due to the fact below the concurrent proximate purpose doctrine, the failure to relaxed Bowan within the car was a concurrent proximate cause of her injuries. The concurrent proximate cause doctrine requires coverage inside the face of an applicable exclusion if there's a separate and unbiased purpose of the damage from the accident which isn't excluded by using the coverage. The courtroom then had to determine whether