United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Estep

• Docket Number: Record No. 0391-22-1
• Decision Date: 14 March 2023
• Citation: 77 Va.App. 16,884 S.E.2d 232
• Parties: UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION v. Bruce A. ESTEP
• Court: Virginia Court of Appeals

77 Va.App. 16

884 S.E.2d 232

UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION

v.Bruce A. ESTEP

Record No. 0391-22-1

Court of Appeals of Virginia, Norfolk.

March 14, 2023

Todd M. Fiorella (Katherine M. Lennon ; Fraim & Fiorella, P.C., on briefs), Norfolk, for appellant.

Scott V. Whitlow, Virginia Beach, for appellee.

Present: Judges O'Brien, Causey and Friedman

OPINION BY JUDGE FRANK K. FRIEDMAN

This appeal raises the question of whether an auto insurance policyholder is entitled to coverage for injuries sustained while packing his car in a hotel parking lot. Bruce Estep was loading luggage into the rear hatch of his SUV when he was struck by a wind-blown luggage cart. He was knocked to the ground and injured. He sought coverage from his insurance policy with United Services Automobile Association (USAA), but USAA claimed Estep's injuries did not fall within the coverage afforded under his policy and Code § 38.2-2201. The circuit court entered a final order awarding judgment to Estep on a finding that his injuries were covered by his policy, entitling him to $30,000 for medical benefits. Because we agree with the court below that Estep's injuries were sustained while he was using and occupying his car, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

The parties stipulated to the relevant facts. On November 20, 2016, Estep and his wife checked out of a hotel in Fairfax County. Estep began loading his bags into his car preparing for a return to his home in Chesapeake. He intended to return the luggage cart to the hotel lobby once the car was packed. Estep first loaded several items into the rear seats of the vehicle and then began the process of putting the remaining luggage in the trunk. The rear door of the SUV was left open. Estep was "leaning into the rear of the vehicle, bent over at the waist and reaching into the vehicle, such that his body was in the vehicle from the waist up" when a gust of wind set the luggage cart he was utilizing in motion. The luggage cart struck him on his right side, causing him to fall to the ground. The injuries he sustained were serious. Estep was insured under a Virginia personal automobile policy, issued by USAA, which included medical benefits coverage. Estep's medical bills totaled $123,989.07, and he incurred expenses totaling $71,813.27.

Estep filed a complaint against USAA for $30,000 for his medical expenses. He alleged that USAA failed to comply with the terms of his automobile policy when it refused to pay his medical expenses. USAA filed an answer, including its defenses. After engaging in discovery, USAA filed a motion for summary judgment and a brief in support thereof. Estep filed a brief in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Estep also filed a "Brief in Support of Plaintiff Being Afforded Medical Expense Benefits Coverage for the Subject Accident" which was treated as a motion for summary judgment. USAA filed a response to Estep's brief.

After hearing the parties’ arguments and reviewing their briefs, the circuit court denied USAA's motion for summary judgment and ordered that Estep would "recover and have judgment" against USAA in the amount of $30,000, plus interest and costs. The circuit court entered an order memorializing its ruling, and USAA timely noted its appeal.

On appeal, USAA maintains that there was no coverage because (1) Estep's injuries did not "ar[i]se out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle" and (2) Estep was not "in or upon, entering, or alighting from" the vehicle when he was struck. We disagree on both fronts.

ANALYSIS

Where, as here, "[t]he dispositive issue[s]" on appeal were "decided by the circuit court based on stipulated facts and involve[ ] the interpretation of a written contract, we apply a de novo standard of review." Christy v. Mercury Cas. Co. , 283 Va. 542, 546, 722 S.E.2d 256 (2012) ; see also Lucas v. Riverhill Poultry, Inc. , 300 Va. 78, 87, 860 S.E.2d 361 (2021) ("Alleged errors involving statutory interpretation or application present questions of law that we review de novo on appeal."). "Similarly, issues of statutory interpretation and the interpretation of insurance contracts present questions of law subject to de novo review [by appellate courts]." GEICO Advantage Ins. Co. v. Miles , ––– Va. ––––, ––––, 879 S.E.2d 908 (2022). We determine de novo not only what contractual terms mean, but also "how those terms apply to the facts of the case." Bratton v. Selective Ins. Co. of America , 290 Va. 314, 329, 776 S.E.2d 775 (2015) (quoting Spectra-4, LLP v. Uniwest Commercial Realty, Inc. , 290 Va. 36, 43, 772 S.E.2d 290 (2015) ).

Estep's insurance policy with USAA mirrors in substance Code § 38.2-2201(A) which governs medical expense benefits coverage in Virginia. The statute provides, in pertinent part:

A. Upon request of an insured, each insurer licensed in this Commonwealth issuing or delivering any policy or contract of bodily injury or property damage liability insurance covering liability arising from the ownership, maintenance or use of any motor vehicle shall provide on payment of the premium, as a minimum coverage (i) to persons occupying the insured motor vehicle; and (ii) to the named insured and, while resident of the named insured's household, the spouse and relatives of the named insured while in or upon, entering or alighting from or through being struck by a motor vehicle while not occupying a motor vehicle, the following health care and disability benefits for each accident:

1. All reasonable and necessary expenses for medical ... services ... resulting from the accident ....

Code § 38.2-2201(A) (emphasis added).

Estep's USAA policy provides that it will pay out "medical expense benefits to an insured who sustains bodily injury ... [which] must be caused by an accident arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle. " (Emphasis added). An "insured" is "you or any family member who sustains bodily injury while occupying ... a motor vehicle[,]" and "occupying" means "in, upon, or getting in, on, out or off."

For Estep to recover medical expense benefits under his USAA policy and Code § 38.2-2201(A), his injuries must have (1) "aris[en] out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle," and (2) occurred while he was "in or upon, entering or alighting from" or otherwise "occupying" his car.

I. The Circuit Court Properly Found that Estep was "Using" his Car "as a Car" When he was Injured

Estep argues his accident arose out of the use of his car "as a car" because he suffered his injuries while he was packing the vehicle before an imminent road trip. USAA in turn claims the accident did not arise out of "use" of the car because there was no causal relationship between loading the trunk with bags and the luggage cart hitting him, as Estep could have been struck by the runaway luggage cart regardless of his proximity to the vehicle.

A. Law Relating to Use of a Vehicle

The Supreme Court has acknowledged that discerning bright-line rules is impossible in this kind of fact intensive case, but it has imparted rules to guide us in "[c]ases involving the terms ‘use’ and ‘occupancy’ in automobile insurance policies...." See Simpson v. Va. Mun. Liab. Pool , 279 Va. 694, 699, 692 S.E.2d 244 (2010). "To [d]etermine when ‘use’ and ‘occupancy’ begin and end ... ‘the critical inquiry is whether there was a causal relationship between the incident and the employment of the insured vehicle as a vehicle. ’ " Id. (quoting Slagle v. Hartford Ins. Co. , 267 Va. 629, 636, 594 S.E.2d 582 (2004) ). "Although the vehicle's use ‘need not be the direct, proximate cause of the injury,’ in the strict legal sense, there must be a causal connection between the accident and the use of the vehicle as a vehicle." Corriveau ex rel. Ballagh v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 298 Va. 273, 278, 836 S.E.2d 694 (2019) (quoting State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Powell , 227 Va. 492, 500, 318 S.E.2d 393 (1984) ). "Actual use of the vehicle as a vehicle is not restricted to its transportation function." Bratton , 290 Va. at 329, 776 S.E.2d 775 (quoting Slagle , 267 Va. at 636, 594 S.E.2d 582 ).

Moreover, the accident "cannot be ‘merely incidental or tangential[ ]’ " to the use of the vehicle. Corriveau , 298 Va. at 278, 836 S.E.2d 694 (quoting Erie Ins. Co. Exch. v. Jones , 248 Va. 437, 443, 448 S.E.2d 655 (1994) ). And an injury does not arise out of use of a car when the accident is connected to a vehicle "only by a chronological sequence of events[ ]" but "never one within the intendment of the parties to these insurance contracts." Jones , 248 Va. at 443, 448 S.E.2d 655.¹

To that end, we give "consideration ... to the intention of the parties to the insurance agreement in determining the scope of the coverage afforded." Powell , 227 Va. at 500, 318 S.E.2d 393 ; see also Simpson , 279 Va. at 699, 692 S.E.2d 244 ("Thus, the natural and ordinary purpose of automobile insurance, objectively and reasonably within the contemplation of the parties to the insurance contract at its inception, must be taken into consideration when determining the scope of the coverage."). A "resulting injury does not arise out of the ‘use’ of the ... vehicle as a vehicle" when the "vehicle is employed in a manner foreign to its designed purpose...." Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Sleigh , 267 Va. 768, 771-72, 594 S.E.2d 604 (2004) (interpreting the same language in the uninsured vehicle context).

B. There was a Tangible Nexus Between the Accident and Estep's Use of the Car as a Vehicle

1. Loading a Trunk with Luggage is a Legitimate and Expected Use of a Vehicle

We agree with the circuit court that there was a tangible nexus between the luggage cart knocking down Estep and his use of the motor vehicle as a vehicle. "[A] causal relationship [exists] between the accident and [victim's] use of the vehicle as a vehicle[ ]" when the victim "us[es] the vehicle's equipment to accomplish his mission[ ] with the immediate intent to drive...