When the Motor Vehicle Exclusion Doesn’t Apply in Motor Vehicle Accidents

           
            Nearly every business trendy liability and house owners coverage policy issued within the
nation of Missouri includes a Motor vehicle Exclusion. although they may be worded in numerous
ways, maximum boil all the way down to except insurance that “arises out of the ownership, maintenance or
use of a motor automobile.” The reason of those exclusions is very straightforward. The dangers
associated with running a motor automobile are separate and distinct from other risks of liability.
Missouri, like most states, has mandatory car coverage. folks who power cars or
organizations that operate fleets of motors can and have to acquire insurance particularly designed to
cowl the operation of motor automobiles.
despite the fact that the phrase “arises out of” seems very wide and might exclude any twist of fate that
takes place due to the operation or use of a motor vehicle that has now not always been the case in
Missouri. certain courts have used some novel tactics to find insurance under non-auto
guidelines for injuries that without a doubt involved using motor cars.
One such case is Bowan v. fashionable protection Indemnity employer of Arizona, 174 S.W.three-D 1 (Mo.
App. E.D. 2005). in that case the plaintiff, Ms. Bowan, a physically and mentally disabled
character, was robotically transported to and from her workplace through preferred safety’s insured,
express scientific Transporters. She became using inside the insured’s 15-individual van while it changed into
involved in a collision with every other car. Bowan was now not carrying a seat belt. She sustained
extreme injuries within the accident, rendering her a paraplegic. popular protection contended that there
turned into no insurance for the twist of fate under the economic preferred liability coverage issued to the
insured due to the motor car exclusion. That exclusion provided that the coverage did not
practice to:
bodily harm or assets damage bobbing up out of the ownership, maintenance, use
or entrustment to others of any aircraft, automobile or watercraft owned or operated by way of
or rented or loaned to any insured. Use consists of operation and loading and
unloading. in addition, ‘loading and unloading’ is described as ‘the handling of
assets.’
The courtroom implemented the concurrent proximate purpose doctrine to discover that there has been coverage beneath
the coverage no matter the motor automobile exclusion. Bowan had alleged in the private harm
motion in opposition to explicit scientific Transporters that they were negligent each inside the operation of the
automobile and in failing to determine that Bowan was no longer sporting a seat belt previous to the collision.
Judgment became received against specific medical Transporters, and an equitable garnishment become
later added towards the insurance provider by using Bowan to collect 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 due to the fact Bowan changed into no longer “belongings.” The Bowan opinion
observed that the entire exclusion did not practice because beneath the concurrent proximate reason
doctrine, the failure to relaxed Bowan within the automobile became a concurrent proximate reason of her
accidents. The concurrent proximate purpose doctrine calls for insurance in the face of an applicable
exclusion if there may be a separate and independent purpose of the injury from the accident which isn't always
excluded with the aid of the coverage. The courtroom then had to determine whether or not the failure to comfy
Bowan changed into a negligent act awesome from the operation of the automobile and whether or not that failure to
comfortable changed into a concurrent proximate motive of her accidents.
The courtroom mentioned  categories of cases decoding the doctrine. the first category concerned
cases in which the negligence of the defendant is unbiased of or divisible from the use of a
motor automobile. In Centermark houses, Inc. v. domestic Indemnity, 897 S.W.2nd ninety eight (Mo. App.
E.D. 1995), a stolen automobile collided with a police officer’s patrol car, injuring the police
officer. The court docket observed insurance, even though the industrial general legal responsibility policy
contained an car legal responsibility exclusion, based on a separate and distinct motive of motion for
negligence wherein it changed into claimed that the Centermark employees “did not comply with
techniques for apprehending, subduing and controlling third events and men and women suspected of
crook activity, and it failed to have right and ok hiring practices….” id. at one zero one. The
court docket determined those allegations to be independent of the possession, upkeep or operation of
the car. The court also refers to Columbia Mutual v. Neal, 992 S.W.2d 204 (Mo. App.
E.D. 1999), wherein a baby was run over by using a vehicle. fit changed into brought towards the child’s
grandparents for negligent supervision of the child. The courtroom talked about that negligent
supervision of a toddler turned into separate and wonderful from the operation of the motor automobile, as
against such claims as negligent entrustment and negligent supervision of personnel.