Opinion ID: 1410593
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Extension of Hamric v. Doe

Text: At issue in Hamric was whether a pedestrian who had moved out of the path of a John Doe vehicle to avoid injury could meet the physical contact requirement of West Virginia Code § 33-6-31(e)(iii) (Supp.1999) [7] and thereby recover uninsured motorist benefits. Our decision in Hamric included a survey of this Court's prior decisions concerning the physical contact requirement. To begin with, we restated our holding in syllabus point seven of Perkins v. Doe, 177 W.Va. 84, 350 S.E.2d 711 (1986) that [t]he uninsured motorist statute, West Virginia Code § 33-6-31 (Supp.1986), is remedial in nature and, therefore, must be construed liberally in order to effect its purpose. Next, we discussed our holding in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Norman, 191 W.Va. 498, 446 S.E.2d 720 (1994), in which this Court ruled in syllabus point two that [i]n order to satisfy the `physical contact' requirement set forth in W.Va.Code § 33-6-31(e)(iii), it is necessary to establish a close and substantial physical nexus between an unidentified hit-and-run vehicle and the insured vehicle. [8] In Hamric, we recognized a need to put flesh on the skeletal bones of Norman,  acknowledging that the specific meaning of the phrase `close and substantial physical nexus' remained undeveloped. Hamric, 201 W.Va. at 619, 499 S.E.2d at 623. Emphasizing our firm commitment to the underlying objective of the physical contact requirementthe prevention of fraud or collusionwe adopted the rationale articulated in Girgis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 75 Ohio St.3d 302, 662 N.E.2d 280 (1996), and determined that: absolute enforcement of the physical contact requirement is contrary to public policy. We believe the physical contact requirement should not bar recovery when there is sufficient independent third-party evidence to conclusively establish that the sequence of events leading to an injury was initially set in motion by an unknown hit-and-run driver or vehicle. Hamric, 201 W.Va. at 620, 499 S.E.2d at 624. Incorporating this policy into our jurisprudence, we held in syllabus points three and four of Hamric that: A close and substantial physical nexus exists between an unidentified hit-and-run vehicle and the insured for uninsured motorist insurance coverage under W.Va. Code § 33-6-31(e)(iii) when an insured can establish by independent third-party evidence to the satisfaction of the trial judge and the jury, that but for the immediate evasive action of the insured, direct physical contact would have occurred between the unknown vehicle and the victim. The but for test is satisfied and the uninsured motorist claim can go forward only if the injured insured presents independent third-party testimony by disinterested individuals which clearly shows the negligence of an unidentified vehicle was a proximate cause of the accident. 201 W.Va. at 616, 499 S.E.2d at 620. Allstate argues that the exception to the physical contact rule that was created in Hamric is one that must be narrowly construed to only apply when the insured is the entity that took the evasive action necessary to avoid contact with the unidentified car. In contrast to Hamric where the evasive action was taken by the insured, Mr. Mace is the person who allegedly took evasive action in the case at bar. There is no dispute concerning the fact that Mr. Dunn never took any evasive action to avoid the accident that occurred. Based on a strict interpretation of Hamric, Allstate maintains that the absence of evasive action taken by the insured prevents application of the physical contact exception. Allstate contends additionally that the public policy considerations that were present in Hamric are noticeably absent in this case. Whereas adherence to the physical contact requirement in Hamric would have deprived the insured of her only avenue of recovery since her injuries were the result of one unknown hit-and-run vehicle, Mr. Dunn has multiple methods of recovery. [9] Consequently, the public policy considerations that supported the Hamric decision are not present in this case. Responding to Allstate's arguments, Mr. Dunn contends that, rather than being limited to single vehicle accidents, the Hamric holding applies whenever a John Doe vehicle initiates an accident sequence. According to Mr. Dunn, whether the insured or another driver had to take evasive action to avoid a collision is irrelevant. Instead of depending on whether evasive action was taken by the insured, the pivotal focus of Hamric is whether the negligence of the John Doe driver is a proximate cause of the resulting accident. In support of his position, Mr. Dunn cites the fact that Ohio courts applying Girgis, the decision upon which this Court relied in Hamric, have extended Girgis to factual scenarios where the actions of the John Doe vehicle cause another vehicle to swerve or take evasive action which in turn results in a collision with the insured's vehicle. See Muncy v. American Select Ins. Co., 129 Ohio App.3d 1, 716 N.E.2d 1171 (1998) (reversing grant of summary judgment to insurer, finding genuine issue of material fact as to whether wood pallet in road dropped by John Doe vehicle caused decedent insured to lose control and collide with another vehicle which caused insured's death due to resulting fire); Kim v. State Farm Mut. Auto., Ins. Co., 1996 WL 729876 (Ohio Ct.App.1996) (reversing grant of summary judgment to insurer, in light of issuance of Girgis, where unknown driver allegedly caused driver of vehicle to collide with insured's vehicle); see also Lovelady v. Alfa Mut. Ins. Co., 233 Ga.App. 117, 503 S.E.2d 349 (1998) (applying uninsured motorist statute to accident where John Doe vehicle allegedly caused tractor-trailer driver to swerve and collide with insured's vehicle). As to Allstate's argument that the policy considerations present in Hamric are lacking in this case, Mr. Dunn states simply that this Court did not make the absence of a source of recovery the basis for its holding in that case. After weighing the arguments presented on both sides of this issue, we find the position advocated by Mr. Dunn to be both compelling and persuasive. Although our holding in Hamric was stated in terms of the insured taking evasive action to avoid physical contact with the John Doe vehicle, the single vehicular nature of that case readily explains the phraseology employed in that case. While we did not have under consideration facts such as those present in the instant case, there is nothing in the logic employed in Hamric which would suggest that we not extend our ruling in that case to cover the scenario presented by this case. The pivotal concern, as correctly identified by Mr. Dunn, is whether the John Doe vehicle sets in motion a sequence of events that is found to have proximately caused the accident for which uninsured motorist benefits are being sought. See Hamric, 201 W.Va. at 620, 499 S.E.2d at 624. Accordingly, we extend our holding in syllabus point three of Hamric v. Doe, 201 W.Va. 615, 499 S.E.2d 619 (1997), to rule that a close and substantial physical nexus between an unidentified hit-and-run vehicle and the insured vehicle sufficient to fulfill the physical contact requirement of West Virginia Code § 33-6-31(e)(iii) (Supp. 1999) exists when an insured can establish by independent third-party evidence that, as a result of the immediate evasive action of a third-party taken to avoid direct physical contact with an unknown vehicle, contact between the third-party's vehicle and the insured's vehicle resulted.