General Acc. Ins. Co. of America v. Olivier
Citation | 574 A.2d 1240 |
Decision Date | 23 May 1990 |
Docket Number | No. 89-3-A,89-3-A |
Parties | GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA v. Richard R. OLIVIER et al. ppeal. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island |
This case comes before us on the appeal of the defendants from a declaratory judgment entered in the Superior Court denying coverage under the uninsured-motorist provisions and medical-payment provisions of an insurance policy. We reverse. The facts of the case as agreed by the parties are as follows.
In support of their appeal, defendants, the co-administrators, argue that there is a sufficient nexus between the automobile accident clearly caused by the negligence of Richard W. Morin and the death of the decedent to warrant coverage under the policy conditions. We shall divide this contention into its component parts.
The plaintiff insurer claims, and the trial justice held, that coverage under this policy must be denied as a result of the fact that at the time defendants' decedent was shot, she was not an occupant of her motor vehicle. The facts indicate that plaintiff had left the motor vehicle in order to furnish information to a police officer and was located approximately 117 feet away from the vehicle in which she had been a passenger. In determining whether the decedent came within the term "occupying," we are persuaded by the analysis of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court contained in Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Contrisciane, 504 Pa. 328, 473 A.2d 1005 (1984). In that case the court found that a motorist who had been involved in an accident with another party was struck by another vehicle while he stood by a police car providing information relating to his driver's license and owner's card. The driver of the vehicle causing the accident was uninsured. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court set forth criteria under which a motorist using an insured vehicle would be considered to be "occupying" that vehicle within the meaning of the policy.
"(4) the person must also be engaged in a transaction essential to the use of the vehicle at the time." 504 Pa. at 336, 473 A.2d at 1009.
In applying the facts of the case to the foregoing criteria, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania observed:
In the case at bar, the holding of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would be most applicable. The decedent here was a passenger in an insured motor vehicle when the accident occurred. She was requested to leave that motor vehicle by a Cumberland police officer and sit in his police vehicle until they were interviewed concerning the facts relating to the accident. As in Contrisciane this transaction was related to her occupancy of the insured motor vehicle. She was certainly vehicle oriented at the time the fatal shot was fired. It was her status as a passenger in the insured vehicle that precipitated the whole unfortunate series of events. Consequently we are of the opinion that at the time the decedent was shot she came within...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Willard v. Kelley, 69347
...at 293; Celina Mutl. Ins. Co. v. Saylor, 35 Ohio Misc. 81, 301 N.E.2d 721, 722-723 (Ohio Ct.Cm.Pl.1973); General Acc. Ins. Co. of America v. Olivier, 574 A.2d 1240, 1242 (R.I.1990); Detweiler v. J.C. Penney Cas. Ins. Co., infra note 14, 110 Wash.2d 99, 751 P.2d 282 at 286-287. See also gene......
-
Wendell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...Long (Okla.Ct.App.1989), 783 P.2d 500; Davis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1973), 264 Or. 547, 507 P.2d 9; Gen. Accident Ins. Co. of Am. v. Olivier (R.I.1990), 574 A.2d 1240; Stepp v. Hill (Tenn.Ct.App.1993), 1993 WL 181984; Whitehead v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (Tex.Ct.App.1997)......
-
Cung La v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co.
...P.2d 1124, 1131 (Okla.1990); Hulsey v. Mid-America Preferred Ins. Co., 777 P.2d 932, 937 (Okla.1989); General Accident Ins. Co. of America v. Olivier, 574 A.2d 1240, 1242-43 (R.I.1990); Detweiler v. J.C. Penney Casualty Ins. Co., 110 Wash.2d 99, 751 P.2d 282, 287 Other courts have held that......
-
Hudson v. GEICO Ins. Agency, Inc.
...was entitled to coverage in light of the broad interpretation of "occupying" set forth by this Court in General Accident Insurance Co. of America v. Olivier , 574 A.2d 1240 (R.I. 1990).1 In a written decision issued on August 4, 2015, the trial justice rejected defendant's argument that the......
-
Table of Cases
...438 (1971), § 8:210.3 Garner v. Ford Motor Co. , 61 F.R.D. 22 (D. Alaska 1973), § 9:480 General Acc. Ins. Co. of America v. Olivier , 574 A.2d 1240 (R.I. 1990), § 8:700.20 General Electric Co. v. Joiner , 118 S.Ct. 512 (1997), § 3:463 Gilbert v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. , 470 Mich. 749, 779; 6......
-
Dealing with Defense Team: Insurers, Defense Counsel and Impartial Medical Experts
...would be considered to be “occupying that vehicle” within the meaning of UM policy [ General Acc. Ins. Co. of America v. Olivier , 574 A.2d 1240 (R.I. 1990), quoting Utica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Contrisciane , 504 Pa. 328, 336, 473 A.2d 1005 1009 (1984)]: 8-61 § 8:700 litigating neck and b......
-
Initial client contact
...Company , 47 Conn. Sup. 17, 21, 28 Conn. LRPTR, 471, 768 A.2d 1 (2000). D. General Accident Insurance Company of America v. Olivier , 574 A.2d 1240 (RI 1990). E. Botts v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company , 284 Ore. 95, 585 P.2nd 657 (Ore. 1978). F. Wendell v. State Farm Mutual Auto I......
-
Initial Client Contact
...Company , 47 Conn. Sup. 17, 21, 28 Conn. LRPTR, 471, 768 A.2d 1 (2000). D. General Accident Insurance Company of America v. Olivier , 574 A.2d 1240 (RI 1990). E. Botts v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company , 284 Ore. 95, 585 P.2nd 657 (Ore. 1978). F. Wendell v. State Farm Mutual Auto I......