In the case of State Farm Automobile Insurance Company vs. Dooner, 2018 Pa. Super. 146 (Pa. Super. June 4, 2018 Bender, P.J.E., Lazarus, J., Kunselman, J.) (Op. by Bender, P.J.E.), the court affirmed a trial court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of a passenger’s automobile insurance carrier on a coverage question where the passenger grabbed the steering wheel from the driver and caused the car to crash.
According
to the Opinion, the insured was a passenger in a friend’s vehicle when a fight
broke out and the insured jerked the steering wheel, causing the car to hit an
oncoming police cruiser. The driver of
the vehicle and the police officer sued the friend for the accident.
The
friend’s automobile insurance carrier filed a declaratory judgment action
seeking a ruling that it had no duty to defend, indemnify, or otherwise provide
liability coverage to the friend under her insurance policy. As noted, the trial court granted the
carrier’s Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that the carrier owed no duty of
coverage.
The
court noted that, under the friend’s automobile insurance policy, coverage was
provided for a “non-owned” car if the car was “lawful in the possession of you
or any resident relative.”
The
injured parties asserted that the policy did not define “possession” or
“lawful,” and was, therefore, ambiguous such that the policy had to be
construed in favor of the insured and/or the injured party.
The
trial court had found that the friend’s grabbing of the steering wheel from the
passenger seat did not amount to a taking of lawful possession or control of the
vehicle. On appeal, the appellate court
found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s finding in this regard.
The
appellate court also noted that, even if the friend had been in “possession” of
the vehicle when she grabbed the steering wheel, such possession would not have
been “lawful.”
In
this regard, the court agreed with a decision from another state in which it
was held that a passenger who grabbed a steering wheel was actually interfering
with the vehicle’s operation and such action did not constitute “possession” of the vehicle.
Anyone
wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK .
Source: “Court Summaries” by Timothy L. Clawges, Pennsylvania Bar News (July 2, 2018).
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.