Opinion ID: 2959684
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Coverage Of The Dump Truck

Text: Bratton’s assignment of error 1 reads in relevant part: I. The circuit court erred as a matter of law in determining that Karen Slone Bratton . . . was not entitled to insurance proceeds through Slone’s work vehicle[, the dump truck,] when [Slone] was crushed and killed against the rear tires of that vehicle. A. The circuit court erred as a matter of law in determining that at the time Slone was killed, he was not in the process of “[g]etting out of” his work vehicle. B. The circuit court erred in finding that Bratton agreed that Slone was not “[g]etting out of” his work vehicle at the time of his death and, therefore, the case hinged only on whether Slone was “using” the vehicle.
The Selective Insurance Policy’s provision central to this appeal is commonly found in motor vehicle insurance policies, whereby coverage extends to the “occupying” of certain vehicles, and “occupying” is further defined to cover a variety of discrete situations. See Tropf v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 558 N.W.2d 158, 159-60 (Iowa 1997). We have encountered 2 Each “covered auto” has a $1,000,000 coverage limit. The endorsement allows for that $1,000,000 limit to apply independently to multiple “covered auto[s]” involved in the same accident. 7 many such policies, and have established whether certain facts fall within the scope of some of these discrete situations which define “occupying.” See, e.g., Edwards v. Government Emples. Ins. Co., 256 Va. 128, 134-35, 500 S.E.2d 819, 822 (1998) (determining whether an individual was “occupying” a vehicle because he was “in” or “upon” that vehicle). Although we have reviewed insurance policies that define “occupying” as including “getting out of” a vehicle, we have not addressed what it means to be “getting out of” a vehicle. See, e.g., Newman v. Erie Ins. Exch., 256 Va. 501, 505, 507 S.E.2d 348, 350 (1998). Similarly, we have encountered insurance policies that define “occupying” as including “alighting” from a vehicle – which is simply another way of phrasing “getting out of” that has become less common in contemporary vernacular – but we have not addressed what that language means. See, e.g., Pennsylvania Nat’l Mut. Casualty Ins. Co. v. Bristow, 207 Va. 381, 384-85, 150 S.E.2d 125, 128 (1966). We take this opportunity to define what it means to be “getting out of” a vehicle for purposes of a motor vehicle insurance policy. As the phrase is left undefined in the contract, the “ordinary meaning” of the language prevails, as understood “in light of the contract as a whole.” Bartolomucci v. Federal Ins. Co., 289 Va. 361, 371, 770 S.E.2d 451, 456 (2015) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, to be “getting out of” a vehicle is simply to remove one’s self from the vehicle, so as to depart from the vehicle. The self-evident meaning of this language is, of course, easily understood in the abstract. But difficulty arises when attempting to apply this meaning to the facts of a case. In the related context of construing “alighting” language, courts from other jurisdictions have fallen into two groups. Some courts consider the act of leaving a vehicle to be complete as soon as an individual severs physical contact with the vehicle, whereas other courts look to additional 8 factors beyond physical contact to determine whether the act has been completed. West Am. Ins. Co. v. Dickerson, 865 S.W.2d 320, 322 (Ky. 1993) (collecting cases). We reject the bright-line rule that the process of getting out of a vehicle is complete as soon as physical contact with the vehicle is severed. The discrete situations illustrating the common and ordinary meaning of the term “occupying” certainly connote “a close proximity” to a vehicle. Stern v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 252 Va. 307, 311, 477 S.E.2d 517, 519 (1996) (emphasis added), overruled on other grounds by Newman, 256 Va. at 508-10, 507 S.E.2d at 352-53 (overruling Stern to the extent it construed and applied the term “using”). But the ordinary understanding of the process of “getting out of” a vehicle does not necessitate ongoing physical contact with that vehicle. Indeed, such an unduly narrow construction of “getting out of” fails to find any basis in the language agreed to by the contracting parties. See Tropf, 558 N.W.2d at 159-60 (noting that “some insurers . . . have added a physical contact requirement to their definition of ‘occupying’” because courts typically do not find that “occupying” turns solely upon physical contact). Instead, we join those courts that look beyond mere physical contact to determine whether an individual was, or had already completed, “getting out of” a vehicle. But even among these courts there is disagreement regarding when the process of departing from a vehicle is complete. At the farthest end of the spectrum are courts that employ a “zone of safety” test, so that an individual does not complete the act of departing from a vehicle “until he or she reaches a place of safety . . . to which he or she is proceeding.” Joins v. Bonner, 504 N.E.2d 61, 63 (Ohio 1986). We think this also strays too far afield from the ordinary meaning of “getting out of” a vehicle, and therefore reject this test. 9 Ultimately, then, the analysis of whether an individual is “getting out of” a vehicle must consider the totality of the circumstances – including the individual’s proximity to the vehicle, the duration of time during which the individual acts, the particular actions taken, the situation in which the individual is acting, the motivation for the individual’s actions if any can be ascertained, and the purpose of the policy’s coverage – to determine whether the individual was “getting out of” the vehicle. And if those circumstances establish that the individual was no longer “vehicle-oriented,” then the act of “getting out of” the vehicle was complete. See Robert Roy, Annotation, What Constitutes “Entering” or “Alighting From” Vehicle Within Meaning of Insurance Policy, or Statute Mandating Insurance Coverage, 59 A.L.R. 4th 149, § 2[a] (2012) (observing that courts consider “such factors as the claimant’s distance from the car, the direction of the exit path under the circumstances, and the amount of time elapsed between the moment of exit and the collision” to determine whether “the claimant was still vehicleoriented”); see also Westerfield v. La Fleur, 493 So. 2d 600, 603 (La. 1986); Whitmire v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 174 S.E.2d 391, 394 (S.C. 1970). Cf. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Powell, 227 Va. 492, 500-01, 318 S.E.2d 393, 397 (1984) (setting forth a similar totality of the circumstances analysis for whether an individual was injured during the “use” of a vehicle).
The circuit court ruled that “[t]he parties agree that Mr. Slone . . . was not getting . . . out of the dump truck.” There was no further analysis of the factual support relied upon by the court to deny Bratton’s contention that Slone was “getting out of” the dump truck. Pursuant to assignment of error I.B., this was error. It is clear from the record that, although it was not Bratton’s primary argument for coverage under the Selective Insurance Policy, Bratton had maintained that Slone was “getting 10 out of” the dump truck. Selective Insurance contends that this issue was not “argued with any substance” before the circuit court. But in light of Bratton’s repeated contention to the circuit court that coverage was established by way of Slone “getting out of” the dump truck, the circuit court erred in holding Bratton conceded that Slone was not “getting out of” the dump truck. See Code § 8.01-384(A) (“No party, after having made an objection or motion known to the court, shall be required to make such objection or motion again in order to preserve his right to appeal, challenge, or move for reconsideration of, a ruling, order, or action of the court.”); Cashion v. Smith, 286 Va. 327, 333, 749 S.E.2d 526, 529-30 (2013) (“We have repeatedly held that once a litigant informs the circuit court of his or her legal argument, in order for a waiver to occur within the meaning of Code § 8.01-384(A), the record must affirmatively show that the party who has asserted an objection has abandoned the objection or has demonstrated by his conduct the intent to abandon that objection.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). After the circuit court ruled that Bratton agreed that Slone had not been “getting out of” the dump truck, Bratton filed a motion for reconsideration. In relevant part, this motion identified the points in the record where Bratton had argued that Slone was covered by the Selective Insurance Policy because he was “getting out of” the dump truck. In response, the circuit court summarily denied Bratton’s motion for reconsideration. Although the court did not explicitly address the issue in its order, by its ruling, the court, without analyzing the law or the evidence, implicitly held that Slone was not “getting out of” the dump truck at the time of the accident. Pursuant to assignment of error I.A., this was error. The evidence in the record establishes that Slone was operating the dump truck on the night of the accident. The last thing anyone saw Slone do prior to the collision was unload hot asphalt from the dump truck into the front-end loader. The next time Slone was seen was when 11 he was discovered pinned between one of the drunk driver’s vehicles, the rear blade of the frontend loader, and the dump truck’s left rear tires. The record reflects that approximately less than 30 seconds elapsed between the time when Slone completed the task of unloading the asphalt and the collision. Selective Insurance correctly observes that Slone’s exact location during these 30 seconds cannot be determined beyond all doubt. But inferences drawn from the direct evidence in the record establish that Slone was still vehicle-oriented, and therefore was “getting out of” the dump truck at the time of the accident. Barry v. Tyler, 171 Va. 381, 388, 199 S.E. 496, 499 (1938) (“Inferences drawn from physical facts may be as strong as direct evidence. Such inferences amount to circumstantial evidence.”). The direct evidence establishes three events that occurred within the approximately 30 second timeframe prior to Slone’s death. First, after the asphalt was unloaded onto the front-end loader, and upon Harmon’s signal, Slone lowered the bed of the dump truck into a flat position. Second, Slone departed from the dump truck’s raised cab and, with the dump truck’s engine still running, closed the door behind him. Third, Slone went down the stairs from the raised cab to the ground, and then traversed at least 9 feet to the rear tires. The inference from these actions, considered collectively, sufficiently establishes that Slone did not have enough time to begin a new activity separate from getting out of the vehicle. Likewise, there is no evidence that would lead to a contrary inference, that is, that Slone was no longer vehicle-oriented and had begun a new activity. See Hill v. Bradley, 186 Va. 394, 396, 43 S.E.2d 29, 30 (1947) (“[W]here only one reasonable inference can be drawn from [the] circumstances, the question becomes one of law to be determined by the court.”). Thus, the evidence supports the legal conclusion that Slone was still in the process of “getting out of” the dump truck when the accident occurred. And although 12 Selective Insurance points to evidence tending to show that Slone was yelling as he neared the rear of the dump truck, and to the circuit court’s holding that the evidence failed to establish why Slone had exited the dump truck’s cab, these factual findings – which we accept as correct – do not alter our legal conclusion. The legal conclusion to be drawn from the totality of the circumstances, including the direct evidence and the inferences drawn therefrom, is that Slone was still vehicle-oriented and in the process of “getting out of” the dump truck at the time of the collision. See 59 A.L.R. 4th 149, §§ 2[a], 19[a] (“In cases where the claimant had stepped out of the vehicle and was proceeding to either end of it when injured, the courts have ruled that the claimant was alighting from the vehicle when the circumstances involved a collision between the vehicle from which he was exiting and another vehicle.”). Thus, Slone was “occupying” the dump truck, and Bratton is entitled to insurance proceeds under the Selective Insurance Policy’s coverage of the dump truck as a “covered auto.” 3