[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 1- 12 06 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ D. C. Dock etNo. 5 :0 8- cv -0 12 23 -KOB ARGONAUT GREAT CENTRAL INSURANCE COM PANY, An i ns ur an ce co m

pa ny inc or

po rat ed in th e St at e o f Il li no is , Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us PAUL MITCHELL, Co -Per so na l Re pr es en ta ti ve of t he Est at e o f Sco ttAlan Mi tc he ll , dec eas ed , FREE MITCHELL, Co -Per so na l Re pr es en ta ti ve of t he Est at e o f Sco ttAlan Mi tc he ll , dec eas ed , etal., Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J ul y 20 , 20 12 ) Case: 11-12063 Date Filed: 07/20/2012 Page: 1 of 7Befo re HULL, PRYOR, an d EDMONDSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es .

PER CURI AM:

Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t Arg on au t Gre atCen tra l In su ran ce Co m pany (“ Arg on au t” ) br ou gh t a d ecl arat ory jud gm en t ac ti onag ai ns t t he pe rs on al rep res en ta ti ve s o f th e es ta te of S co ttAlan Mi tc he ll . The ac ti on so ug hta de cl arat io n t ha t M it ch el l was no in su redfor un in su red/u nd eri ns ur edm ot or is t co ve rag e und er a p ol ic y

is su edby Arg on au t (t he “ Po li cy ”) t o M it ch el l’s em pl oyer, th e Ma di so n C ou nt y

Co m m is si on . Bot h p art ie s fi le d m ot io ns forsu m m ary jud gm en t; th e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d Arg on au t’s m ot io n a ndgra nt edsu m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of

Mi tc he ll ’s est at e. No re ve rs ib le erro r ha s b eensh own ; we affi rm th e jud gm en t. In20 08 , Mit ch el l was co ll ect in g g arb ag e in Mad is on Co un ty. The g arag e tru ckwas d riv enby Brian Bro ok s; Mi tc he ll was t he he lp er. Inth atcap aci ty, Mi tc he ll was re qu ire d t o ri de on th e b ackof t he tru ck , getoff at e ach st op to ge t th e can s an d e m

pty th em in to th e b ackof t he tru ckan d t o s ta ndonth e p la tfo rm on th e ri gh t re ar s id e o f th e truc k wh enne ces sa ry to run th e p ack er. Inth e co ur se of pe rfo rm in g h is job du ti es , Mit ch el l was st ru ckfro m be hi ndby a pas se ng er ca r an d 2 Case: 11-12063 Date Filed: 07/20/2012 Page: 2 of 7pi nn edag ai ns t t he rig htrear pl at fo rm of t he ga rb ag e truc k. Mi tc he ll di edfro m hi s in juri es . The Po li cy , in rel ev an t p art , def in ed“ In su red ” as “ an y on e ... ‘ oc cupyin g’” a
co ve redve hi cl e. The p ro vi si on of t he Po li cy ap pl ic ab le to un in su red/u nd eri ns ur ed
m ot or is t co ve rag e d efi ne d “ oc cupyin g” as “ in , up on , get ti ng in , on , or o ff.” Th e is su e atth e h eartof t hi s ap pe al is whet he r Mi tc he ll was “ oc cupyin g” th e g arb ag e tru ck-- g et ti ng on or g et ti ng off -- atth e ti m e o f th e acc id en t. The fact s p res en te d b y

bo th si de s ar e in co nf

li ctab ou t p reci se ly whe re Mi tc he ll was wh enhe was s tru ckby the pa ss en ge r car . Argo nautass ert s t ha t te st im on y sh ows th atMi tc he ll was o ff the tru ckforeig htto twel ve sec on ds or m or e, st an di ng on th e g ro un d a t t he lef t re ar o r atth e m id dl e o f th e rear of th e ga rb ag e tr

uc k a t t he ti m e o f im

pa ct . Mit ch el l’s es ta te ass ert s tha t t es ti m on y sh ows th atMi tc he ll ’s feetwere o n t he gro un d a t the rearof the tru ck a m ere s pl itsec on d be fo re h e was st ru ck ; h e was in th e p ro ces s o f as cen di ng or d es cen di ng th e truc k pl at fo rm . Becau se co nf

li ct in g e vi de nc e ex is te d o n t he factua l que st io n o f whe th er Mi tc he ll was i n t he actof g et ti ng on or o ff the garb ag e truc k a t t he ti m e o f im pa ct , th e m ag is tra te jud ge reco m m en de d t ha t b ot h m ot io ns forsu m m ary jud gm en t b e de ni ed . After e xa m in in g Al ab am a cas e la w on whatco ns ti tu te s “ oc cupyin g” for

3 Case: 11-12063 Date Filed: 07/20/2012 Page: 3 of 7pu rp os es of u ni ns ur ed/u nd eri ns ur edm ot or is t co ve rag e, th e d is tri ctco urt

co nc lu de d t ha t thi s co nf

li ctin th e ev id en ce was imm at eri al
. Two Alaba m a cas es ad dr es s t he term “ oc cupyin g” when th atterm is de fin ed
as itis de fin edinth e Arg on au t p ol ic y . See Lam be rt v . Cor eg is Ins . Co., 9 50 So .2d 11 56 ) (Ala . 20 06 ) an d C oo k v . Aetn a In s. Co ., 66 1 S o.2 d 1 16 9 (Al a. 19 95 ). In bo th cas es , th e Alaba m a Supr em e Co urt co nc lu de d t ha t “ oc cupyin g” as u se d i n t he Arg on au t p ol ic y

was n otam

bi gu ou s. See Lam

be rt, 9 50 So .2dat 1 16 2- 64 ; Co ok , 66 1 S o.2 d a t 1 17 3. Th e fac ts of t he se cas es are d is ti ng ui sh ab le : Lam be rt ex am in edwhet he r th e cl ai m an t was “ on ” o r “ up on ” th e in su redve hi cl e; Co ok
ex am in edwhet he r th e cl ai m an t was “ ge tt in g i n” th e in su redve hi cl e. As s uc h, th es e cas es pro vi de gu id an ce -- bu t d o n otco ntro l -- th e in st an t ca se whi ch tu rn s on th e m ean in g o f “ ge tt in g o n” an d “ ge tt in g o ff” t he in su redve hi cl e. W e kno w fro m

Co okth at“ oc cupy” im

po se s n o “ rig idrequi rem en t o f ph y si cal co nt act ” b etween th e cl ai m an t an d t he in su redve hi cl e. Co ok , 66 1 S o.2 d. at11 73 . Andwe kn ow fr om Lam be rt tha t “ Alab am a h as no t ad op te d asp eci fic te stun de r whi ch to ex am in e th e p hr as e ‘in, upo n, g etti ng in , on , ou t o r of f’ . .. to de te rm in e whe th er a p ers on is ‘ oc cupyin g’ a ve hi cl e in th e co nt ex t o f th e in su ran ce ag reem en t.” Lam be rt, 9 50 So . 2dat 1 16 0. The Alab am a Supr em e Co urt n ot edth atothe r juri sd ic ti on s h adad op te d s pe ci fic tes ts : 4 Case: 11-12063 Date Filed: 07/20/2012 Page: 4 of 7The se tes ts in cl ud e requi rin g t he pe rs onin jure d t o b e ‘veh ic le or ie nt ed ,’ requi rin g t he pe rs on to be in clo se pro xi m it y to th e in su red ve hi cl e, an d re qu iri ng actua l p hysic al co nt actwit h t he ve hi cl e. The m ajor ity of ju ris di ct io ns ho ldth atth e m ean in g o f th e te rm ‘occupyin g’ m

us t b e d et erm in edon a cas e-b y -cas e b as is , dep en di ng on th e fac ts of t he acci de ntan d t he us e o f th e v eh ic le , andth atth ere m us t al way s b e so m e cau sa l co nn ect io n b etween th e in juri es an d t he us e o f th e v eh ic le
. Id . at 1 16 0- 61 . Alth ou gh th e Alaba m a Supr em e Co urt d idno t t ak e th e o ccas io n t o ad op t an y of t he se tes ts -- th e p hysic al co nt actrequi rem en t h adbe enreject edin Co ok-- th e Co urt, i n Lam be rt, d idob se rv e th atth e p la in ti ff m etno ne of t he li st ed te st s; th atno cau sa l co nn ect io n b etween in juri es su ffer edan d u se of t he ve hi cl e ha d b een sh own ; an d t ha t t he pl ai nt iff was n otve hi cl e o rie nt edat t he ti m e o f im pa ctbe cau se he was e ng ag edin no act iv ity ess en ti al to th e u se of t he in su red
ve hi cl e. Id . at 1 16 1. As m or e fu ll y

setou t i n t he di st ric t co urt’s o pi ni on , th e u nd is pu te d m at eri al fact s s ho w -- an d Arg on au t co nc ed es -- a caus al co nn ect io n e xi st s b etween Mi tc he ll ’s us e o f th e in su redtru ckan d the acci de nt . ButforMi tc he ll ’s us e o f th e tru ckto ful fil l h is em

pl oym en t re sp on si bi li ti es he wou ldno t h av e b een at t he rear of th e truc k a t t he ti m e h e was st ru ck
. The in te nd edus e o f th e sa ni ta ti on tru ckwas t o c ol le ctga rb ag e al on g t he
ro ut e. Argo nautkn ew itwas i ns ur in g asan it at io n t ru ck . AndMi tc he ll ’s us e o f

5 Case: 11-12063 Date Filed: 07/20/2012 Page: 5 of 7th attru ck-- in cl ud in g h is rep eat ed ly get ti ng on an d g etti ng off of t he tru ck-- was anex pe ct ed(in de ed , requi red ) us e o f th attru ck . As th e d is tri ctco urt o bs erv ed , th e te rm “ oc cupyin g” as d efi ne d i n t he po li cy sh ou ldbe gi ve n am or e ex pa ns iv e read in g i n t he co nt ex t o f a s an it at io n t ru ckth anm ig htot he rwis e ap pl y in th e co nt ex t o f a p as se ng er car. Whi le th e fac ts are d is pu te d abo utpre ci se ly whe re Mi tc he ll st oo d ju st be fo re i m pa ct , th e u nd is pu te d m at eri al fact s s ho w th atMi tc he ll was “ ve hi cl e or ie nt ed ” whe n s tru ck : h e was faci ng th e rea r of th e truc k, s tand in g i n c lo se pr ox im ity to th e truc k, an d e ng ag in g i n a ct s es se nt ia l t o t he us e o f th e sa ni ta ti on tru ck
. Afte r a tho ro ug h re vi ew of th e rec or d a ndAlab am a p rece de nt , th e d is tri ct co urt re ach edth is co nc lu si on :

Tak in g i nt o a cco un t t he us e o f th e in su redve hi cl e, th e cau sa l co nn ect io n b etween th atus e an d the acci de nt , Sco ttMi tc he ll ’s clo se pro xi m it y to th e ri gh t re ar pl at fo rm of t he tru ck , hi s p os it io n fa ci ng th atpl at fo rm whe n h e was st ru ckfro m be hi nd , no th in g re m ai ne d t o b e co m pl et edin hi s ap pr oa ch to th e tr uc k, an d h is en ga ge m en t i n atra ns act io n e ss en ti al to th e u se of t ha t ve hi cl e, th e co urt co nc lu de s tha t n o re as on ab le jury co ns id eri ng th es e u nd is pu te d fa ct s wo ul d fi ndth atSco tt Mi tc he ll was n ot‘ oc cupyin g’ th e tr uc k a t t he ti m e h e was fat al ly inju red
.

6 Case: 11-12063 Date Filed: 07/20/2012 Page: 6 of 7W e ag ree. Th e u nd is pu te d m at eri al fact s s up po rt t he co urt’s co nc lu si on th at

Mi tc he ll was “ oc cupyin g” th e sa ni ta ti on tru ckat t he ti m e o f th e acc id en t as th at te rm is us edin th e Arg on au t p ol ic y . * AFFIR MED.

The district cour

t offer ed an a lternative ba sis for conc luding that Mitche ll was an insure d * under the Arg onaut policy for uninsure d/underinsure d cover ag e: bec ause Mitche ll would qualify as an insure d for liability

cover ag e, he a lso must qualify as an insure d for uninsure d/underinsure d cover ag e. Our

aff irmance of the district cour t judgment doe s not consider this alternative basis. 7 Case: 11-12063 Date Filed: 07/20/2012 Page: 7 of 7