Opinion ID: 2959684
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: accidents arising out of “using” a vehicle

Text: The second class of insureds under Code § 38.2-2206(B) includes consensual users, those who use a covered vehicle with the “expressed or implied consent of the named insured.” 10 Unlike named insureds and others in the first class, consensual users have UM/UIM coverage subject to several limitations. First, the claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he actually was given “the expressed or implied consent of the named insured,” Code § 38.2-2206(B), to use the covered vehicle at the time of the accident. See generally Perry, 204 Va. at 837-38, 134 S.E.2d at 420-21; Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Harleysville Mut. Cas. Co., 203 Va. 600, 603, 125 S.E.2d 840, 843 (1962). Permission for one use does not imply permission for other uses. We have expressly “rejected the expansive interpretation of courts in some other states that express permission to use a vehicle for one purpose implies permission for all other purposes.” Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Davis, 246 Va. 495, 498, 436 S.E.2d 429, 431 (1993). 9 See, e.g., id. § 5.2, at 263 (providing examples of coverage for getting in or out of a vehicle when claimants are injured while standing “beside a taxi to pay the driver” or “unlocking the door of an insured vehicle”). 10 The “use” referred to in this context refers to the claimant’s use of the covered vehicle, not the tortfeasor’s use of his uninsured or underinsured vehicle. Concerning the latter “use” concept, see generally Lexie v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 251 Va. 390, 39697, 469 S.E.2d 61, 64 (1996), and Travelers Insurance Co. v. LaClair, 250 Va. 368, 371-73, 463 S.E.2d 461, 463-64 (1995). In the present case, of course, there is no dispute as to whether the drunk drivers were using their vehicles at the time of the accident. 27 In cases where, as here, the named insured is an employer, employees cannot be judicially deemed de facto named insureds. Instead, employees of a named insured are covered by the employer’s UM/UIM policy only to the extent that they fall within the second class of consensual users or guests. In Perry, we explained why this must be so: Nor can we agree that [the claimant], because of his status as an employee of the city, was the named insured, either under the wording of the policy or the language of the statute. The policy before us clearly states that the city of Norfolk is the named insured. The court cannot substitute the name of each of the many employees of the city in place of that of the city as the named insured and thus stretch the coverage of the policy to include each such employee and all of the members of his household specified in the statute. Perry, 204 Va. at 836, 134 S.E.2d at 420. Important reasons require this conclusion: To do so would be to rewrite the policy, to make a new contract for the parties and to distort the meaning of the statute. This would extend the benefits granted and broaden the risks imposed to a degree obviously never contemplated by the parties to the insurance contract nor intended by the legislature. Id. at 836-37, 134 S.E.2d at 420; see also Cunningham, 213 Va. at 76, 189 S.E.2d at 835. Second, UM/UIM coverage applies to a consensual user only if the accident “arose out of the ‘use’ of” the vehicle. Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Cassell, 239 Va. 421, 423, 389 S.E.2d 476, 477 (1990). In this respect, “the critical inquiry is whether there was a causal relationship between the incident and the employment of the insured vehicle as a vehicle.” Simpson v. Virginia Mun. Liab. Pool, 279 Va. 694, 699, 692 S.E.2d 244, 247 (2010) (quoting Slagle v. Hartford Ins. Co., 267 Va. 629, 635, 594 S.E.2d 582, 585 (2004)). In other words, the claimant’s use must in some way be a contributing factual cause of his accident, though it need not be a “direct, proximate cause of the injury in the strict legal sense.” Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Smelser, 264 Va. 109, 114, 563 S.E.2d 760, 763 (2002) (quoting State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Powell, 227 Va. 492, 500, 318 S.E.2d 393, 397 28 (1984)). Use plus causality is the threshold requirement for UM/UIM coverage under Code § 38.2-2206(B). We explained these subtle causality principles in Slagle. In that case, a worker was giving hand signals to the driver of a truck attempting to deliver a load. While doing so, the worker was struck by a passing vehicle. Slagle, 267 Va. at 632, 594 S.E.2d at 583-84. Seeking to tap into UM/UIM coverage on the truck, the worker advanced two theories of use coverage under Code § 38.2-2206(B). First, he claimed that the truck employed its “emergency flashers and audible back-up alarm” that was designed to warn oncoming traffic. Id. at 637, 594 S.E.2d at 587. Second, the worker pointed out that, at the time of the accident, his hand movements were controlling the precise movements of the truck. Controlling it, the worker argued, was the same as using it. We agreed with the second use theory, but not the first. Concerning the truck’s safety lights and alarms, we noted that there was “no factual basis to conclude that this safety equipment effectively created a safety zone” for the worker. Id. We added that, “[m]oreover, there is no factual basis for a conclusion that [the worker] relied upon them for that purpose.” Id. Given the absence of evidence proving that the truck’s lights and alarms actually created a “safety zone” and that the worker “relied” on the truck for this purpose, id., we held that the worker was not using the truck under Code § 38.2-2206(B). 11 On the other hand, we accepted the theory that the worker’s “hand signals to the driver effectively determined the direction and movement of the tractor-trailer and were required by the 11 We made clear in Slagle that “the driver had activated his emergency flashers and back-up alarm but there was no evidence that they created a safety zone for the manager or that he had relied on them.” Simpson, 279 Va. at 701, 692 S.E.2d at 248. “Our decision rested solely on the fact that the manager was directing the movement of the tractor-trailer and was using it as a vehicle for the accomplishment of his work.” Id. 29 driver for the completion of the intended maneuver of the vehicle.” Id. The worker’s “acts in assisting the driver of that vehicle were an integral part of [the worker’s] mission to locate the construction equipment at a particular place on his company’s construction site.” Id. at 637-38, 594 S.E.2d at 587. These facts, Slagle held, implicated UM/UIM coverage because “a causal relationship” existed between the worker’s accident and his specific use of the truck. Id. Consider, too, United States Fire Insurance Co. v. Parker, 250 Va. 374, 463 S.E.2d 464 (1995), in which a landscaper drove a truck to a worksite and parked it “at the site in such a position as to provide a ‘safety barrier’ to protect [her and other workers] from speeding motorists.” Id. at 376, 463 S.E.2d at 465. She got out of the truck but left a two-way radio on, as required by her employer, and left a door open so she could hear communications from her supervisor. Id. A speeding vehicle later struck the parked truck, causing it to injure the landscaper who was digging a hole in a flower bed “12 to 15 feet from the truck.” Id. The trial court in Parker concluded that UM/UIM coverage applied because the landscaper “remained close to the truck and the work had not been completed; also, the truck was being used as a barrier, to load and unload the plants, and for communication with the supervisor.” Id. at 377, 463 S.E.2d at 466. Holding these uncontested facts insufficient as a matter of law, we reversed. The “crucial inquiry,” we explained in Parker, was whether there was “a causal relationship between the incident and the employment of the insured vehicle as a vehicle.” Id. (citing Travelers Ins. Co. v. LaClair, 250 Va. 368, 372, 463 S.E.2d 461, 464 (1995)). Causality was absent because the claimant “was not engaged in a transaction essential to the use of the pickup truck when she was injured.” Id. at 378, 463 S.E.2d at 466. “In other words, she was not 30 utilizing the truck as a vehicle at that time. She was 12 to 15 feet away from the truck with her foot on a shovel in the act of digging a hole when struck.” Id. It made no difference, we emphasized in Parker, that the landscaper positioned the truck “as a barrier” or that she listened for radio traffic from the truck’s two-way radio. Id. The landscaper was not using the truck in the manner contemplated by Code § 38.2-2206(B). See also Simpson, 279 Va. at 701-02, 692 S.E.2d at 248 (a deputy sheriff was not “using” or “occupying” his cruiser after stepping a few feet away from it to make an arrest); Perry, 204 Va. at 838, 134 S.E.2d at 421 (a police officer was not “using” his police cruiser at the time of the accident because he parked it and walked 164 feet away to serve a warrant). In this case, Slone was not the “named insured” and thus could only obtain UM/UIM coverage if he “occupied the status of an insured of the second class, as defined by statute.” Cunningham, 213 Va. at 77, 189 S.E.2d at 835. The Estate argued at trial that he was using a pickup truck driven to the jobsite by another employee and that this use triggered UM/UIM coverage under Code § 38.2-2206(B). Sitting as factfinder, the trial judge weighed the conflicting evidence and concluded: “Slone was not using the pickup truck.” J.A. at 352. The judge explained in detail the factual basis for this conclusion:  Another employee, James Harmon, drove and parked the pickup truck at the jobsite.  The evidence did not prove that Slone’s employer, the named insured, expressly or implicitly authorized him to use the pickup truck for any reason on the day of the accident. 12 12 In Virginia, “the issue whether a named insured has permitted another to use her vehicle is generally a question of fact.” Davis, 246 Va. at 498, 436 S.E.2d at 431. Here, Harmon testified at trial that he was “never instructed by anybody or told by anybody to park [his] vehicle on the side of the road some 200 feet back and use the amber light.” J.A. at 221. 31  At the time of the accident, the truck was “200 feet” away from Slone’s dump truck, id., when safety regulations required shadow vehicles to be “between 50 and 100 feet from the first work crew,” id. at 353; see also id. at 435, 437.  Neither Harmon nor Slone used the pickup truck as a safety “shadow vehicle” to warn oncoming traffic of the road work. Id. at 353.  “Instead, Mr. Harmon used it to bring himself and tools to the jobsite.” Id.  Whenever Harmon parked a truck on a jobsite, he put on all of the lights on the truck (headlights and cautionary lights). He did this simply as a matter of “habit.” Id. No one “told him to do so.” Id.  Slone’s employer “was not responsible for setting up the lane closure for this job,” id., and “had nothing to do with setting up the jobsite,” id. at 355; see also id. at 413.  Harmon only parked his pickup truck there “because it was his regular habit to park his truck at the beginning of the worksite.” Id. at 354. “[N]o one order[ed] Mr. Harmon to park his truck there.” Id.  “Slone did not use [the pickup truck] as an integral part of his mission.” Id.  “Nothing suggests that Slone knew the truck was there,” id., or viewed it as anything other than just “another barricade among all the other safety equipment at the site,” id. at 355.  Any “subjective intent” of Harmon “to use the pickup truck for extra protection does not mean Slone was objectively using the truck.” Id.  “Slone did not rely on the pickup truck to perform any of [his] duties.” Id. The majority disregards these factual findings, implicitly makes contrary findings of its own, 13 and then characterizes the exercise as answering a question of law. This approach 13 In doing so, the majority puts great emphasis on the testimony of Harmon. The trial judge, however, found Harmon not to be a credible witness. “On numerous occasions during trial,” the judge stated, “Mr. Harmon made statements inconsistent with sworn statements he had made in the past. When confronted with these past statements, Mr. Harmon would equivocate or admit he was uncertain.” Id. at 351. “Compounding the Court’s reluctance to credit Mr. Harmon’s testimony,” the judge continued, “is the fact that Mr. Harmon admitted uncertainty 32 conflicts with the traditional view that we should defer to a trial judge’s factual findings no differently than we would to a jury verdict, Worrie v. Boze, 191 Va. 916, 923, 62 S.E.2d 876, 879 (1951), recognizing that we have no authority “to preside de novo over a second trial,” Haskins v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 1, 11, 602 S.E.2d 402, 407 (2004). And for good reason: In a bench trial, “[t]he trial judge’s major role is the determination of fact, and with experience in fulfilling that role comes expertise.” Id. (quoting Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 574-75 (1985)). A trial on the merits should be “the ‘main event’ rather than a ‘tryout on the road’” to the appellate court. Anderson, 470 U.S. at 575 (quoting Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 90 (1977)). Here, the insurer had no burden of production or persuasion on any issue. Instead, the Estate bore the burden of proving, to the satisfaction of the factfinder, that Slone was “using” Harmon’s pickup truck at the time of the accident. The trial judge was understandably unpersuaded. No evidence suggested that Slone’s employer (the named insured) authorized Slone to use the pickup truck. Slone did not drive the pickup truck, park it at the jobsite, operate any of its equipment, rely on it to perform any of his duties, or, for that matter, even know that it was there. 14 The pickup truck was 200 feet away and on the other side of a tractor. If Slone was about which [asphalt] pour Slone was on.” Id.; cf. id. at 165 (admitting that “I’m not, I’m not sure” what asphalt pour Slone was on just before the accident). 14 See, e.g., J.A. at 218 (testimony by Harmon that he had had “no discussions with Slone that night about where [Harmon’s] vehicle was parked” or for “what purpose, if any,” Harmon had parked his truck there). These facts distinguish this case from Randall v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 255 Va. 62, 64-68, 496 S.E.2d 54, 54-57 (1998), in which the claimant was an employee given permission by his employer to drive a truck to a worksite and to operate its emergency lights as prescribed by his employer’s safety procedures while unloading a lane closure sign from the truck onto the shoulder, and Cassell, 239 Va. at 424, 389 S.E.2d at 477, in which the claimant firefighter knowingly used the fire truck to “extinguish the fire, control traffic and protect the fire fighters, including [claimant].” 33 “using” the pickup truck, as the majority asserts, then every worker on the jobsite was also “using” it, whether or not the employer had consented to such use. It is legally immaterial that Harmon may have thought he was “using” the pickup truck for safety purposes. It is Slone’s use — not Harmon’s — that matters, see J.A. at 355, because it is Slone, not Harmon, who seeks to be deemed a “user” of the pickup truck for UM/UIM purposes. See, e.g., Appellant’s Br. at 32-35; Oral Argument Audio at 5:23 to 5:38. To make matters worse, no evidence proved that Slone’s employer, the named insured, expressly or implicitly authorized Slone to use Harmon’s pickup truck for any reason. That fact alone is dispositive. In Parker, we acknowledged that the landscaper positioned the parked truck “for safety purposes” but held that this was done “independently and not because of any requirement” of the employer. Parker, 250 Va. at 378, 463 S.E.2d at 466 (quoted in Randall v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 255 Va. 62, 67, 496 S.E.2d 54, 56 (1998)). Exactly the same conclusion applies here. The majority also does not explain how its appellate factfinding survives the causality principle, which requires proof that the accident “arose out of the ‘use’ of” a vehicle. Cassell, 239 Va. at 423, 389 S.E.2d at 477. In this context, UM/UIM liability can be imposed on an insurer only when the claimant’s use of the vehicle is in some way a contributing factual cause of his accident. See Simpson, 279 Va. at 702, 692 S.E.2d at 248 (rejecting UM coverage because “the ‘use’ of motor vehicles played no role in the injuries [the claimant] sustained”). In Slagle, we held that a vehicle’s “emergency flashers and audible back-up alarm” did not prove that an injured worker at the jobsite was “using” the vehicle because there was “no factual basis to conclude that this safety equipment effectively created a safety zone” for the worker and “no factual basis for a conclusion that [the worker] relied upon them for that 34 purpose.” Slagle, 267 Va. at 637, 594 S.E.2d at 587; see also Simpson, 279 Va. at 702, 692 S.E.2d at 248. We came to the same conclusion in Parker, where the claimant drove a truck to the jobsite and purposefully parked it “at the site in such a position as to provide a ‘safety barrier’ to protect [her and other workers] from speeding motorists.” Parker, 250 Va. at 376, 463 S.E.2d at 465. We reversed the trial court’s finding of UM/UIM coverage because the evidence did not satisfy the “crucial inquiry,” which was whether there was “a causal relationship between the incident and the employment of the insured vehicle as a vehicle.” Id. at 377, 463 S.E.2d at 466. Nothing about the claimant’s use of the truck contributed to the cause of her accident. After all, “[s]he was 12 to 15 feet away from the truck with her foot on a shovel in the act of digging a hole when struck.” Id. at 378, 463 S.E.2d at 466. The facts of the present case, even as inferred by the majority, do not rise beyond the level deemed insufficient as a matter of law in Slagle, Simpson, and Parker. And the facts of this case, as found by the trial judge as factfinder, do not even come close to satisfying the causality requirement for imposing UM/UIM liability on the insurer. II. In sum, Slone was not getting out of his dump truck at the time of his accident. He had already gotten out of it, closed the door, and walked at least nine feet away. Nor was Slone using Harmon’s pickup truck parked 200 feet down the road. Slone did not even know it was there, and he was not authorized by his employer, the named insured, to use Harmon’s pickup truck for any reason. The majority’s contrary holdings, based in large part on rejecting the trial court’s factual findings and inverting the applicable burden of proof, effectively extend UM/UIM coverage to 35 every worker on a jobsite when there is a covered vehicle arguably used by any one of them. Neither the text of the statute nor our precedent interpreting it supports such an expansive view of UM/UIM coverage. I respectfully dissent. 36