Opinion ID: 2423885
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Bodily Injury By Vehicle Nexus Test

Text: The State Farm automobile insurance contract issued to Nashed follows the requirements of the Delaware No-Fault Statute, which requires coverage for bodily injury . . . arising out of ownership, maintenance or use of the vehicle. [1] In Nationwide General Ins. Co. v. Royal , [2] this Court adopted a three-part test, which was initially articulated by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Continental Western Ins. Co. v. Klug , [3] to determine whether a bodily injury occurred from ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle. [4] The Klug test considers: 1) Whether the vehicle was an active accessory in causing the injury, which is something less than proximate cause in the tort sense and something more than the vehicle being the mere situs of the injury; 2) whether there was an act of independent significance that broke the causal link between the use of the vehicle and the injuries inflicted; and 3) whether the vehicle was used for transportation purposes. [5] In Nationwide General Ins. Co. v. Royal , an insured sought UIM coverage for injuries she sustained when she was struck inside a mobile home by shots fired from a passing vehicle. [6] Applying the Klug test, this Court held that the vehicle from which the shots were fired was not an active accessory in the shooting because the vehicle was not an essential or even significant element in the events that led to Royal's injuries. [7] In Royal, finding the failure to satisfy the first prong of the Klug test to be dispositive, this Court concluded that the injuries did not occur from the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle. [8] In Sanchez v. American Independent Ins. Co., [9] this Court also applied the Klug test in an action seeking PIP coverage under title 21, section 2118 of the Delaware Code. [10] There, a passenger was shot while riding in a car. [11] In Sanchez, this Court explained that when the injury would just as easily have been caused without the vehicle's involvement, the fact that the shooting victim was a passenger does not transform the occurrence into an automobile accident. [12]