Opinion ID: 2959684
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Meaning Of “Getting Out Of” A Vehicle

Text: 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).