Opinion ID: 1855218
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage endorsement issued by USF & G to Des Moines Waterworks provided:

Text: B. WHO IS AN INSURED .... 3. Anyone else occupying a covered auto or a temporary substitute for a covered auto. .... F. ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS The following are added to the DEFINITIONS Section: .... 2. Occupying means in, upon, getting in, on, out or off. This is a typical definition found in uninsured motorist coverage. As we recently stated: Historically, the term occupying has been defined as in or upon or entering into or alighting from the insured vehicle. The interpretation of this standard definition has given rise to repeated litigation concerning the scope of coverage. Courts have examined the relationship between the vehicle and the claimant, both as to geographical proximity and the orientation of the claimant's activities, to decide whether a particular claimant was occupying the insured vehicle at the time of his or her injury. Physical contact is usually not required for coverage under the traditional definition. Tropf, 558 N.W.2d at 160 (citations omitted). We employed the physical contact test in Tropf because the policy definition of occupying required the person seeking insured status to be in physical contact with the insured vehicle. When the policy definition does not impose this mandatory requirement of physical contact, most jurisdictions recognize there is a zone or area around the insured vehicle in which protection is afforded. 1 Alan I. Widiss, Uninsured and Underinsured Motorist Insurance § 5.2, at 192 (2d ed. 1992) [hereinafter Widiss]. Coverage has been extended in many cases where the insured has been engaged in an activity associated with the vehicle's use or operation. Id. at 197. As suggested by Widiss: When persons are engaged in activities that relate to the use or the maintenance of an insured vehicle, it seems reasonable that they should be accorded the same protection that is afforded for individuals who (a) have completed their use of an insured vehicle and are alighting or (b) are about to become occupants of an insured vehicle and are engaged in entering. Certainly, extending protection to such individuals is fully consistent with the public policy underlying the statutory mandates for the uninsured motorist coverage. Id. at 198. B. USF & G liability coverage provided: A. COVERAGE .... 1. Who Is An Insured The following are insureds. .... b. Anyone else while using with your permission a covered auto you own,.... Because he was using the truck with his employer's consent, Simpson argues he is an insured under the liability coverage portion of the policy. He insists Iowa Code section 516A.1 requires uninsured motorist coverage be provided to him as an employee using the Des Moines Waterworks' vehicle at the time of the accident. USF & G argues Simpson was not using the vehicle at the time he was injured. We believe it is appropriate to consider the statutory provision relating to uninsured motorist coverage when construing the policy language. The terms of the policy are construed in light of the purposes and intent of the applicable statute. Veach v. Farmers Ins. Co., 460 N.W.2d 845, 847 (Iowa 1990). It has been stated: Therefore, if a coverage issue arises about the scope of protection when the insurance policy is subject to such a statutory mandate, there is an additionaland very compellingjustification for the view that coverage must be afforded for anyone who is engaged in the maintenance or use of an insured vehiclethat is, anyone who is engaged in the maintenance or use is an insured because such persons clearly are afforded liability coverage without regard to whether they are defined as insureds in the coverage terms for the uninsured motorist insurance. Widiss § 5.2, at 198. C. Here, the district court concluded Simpson was not upon or getting in or on the vehicle at the time of the incident because he was, at best, walking back to the truck from the manhole where he was conducting a valve inspection, some twenty feet from the vehicle. The court also concluded the truck was not being used by Simpson at the time of the accident. It is undisputed from the record that Simpson was inspecting a water main valve near the intersection of two streets. He had parked the truck on the curb lane of the street. To inspect the valve it was necessary to remove an eight-inch-diameter lid in the street pavement and clean out the box containing the valve. To accomplish this task, he used a variety of tools that were available in the truck. The truck was specially designed with directional arrow board lights, flashers, and strobe lights for safety. The truck was equipped with a hydraulic valve operator's machine that would extend three feet from the side of the truck to assist in opening the valve. The truck was the valve inspector's toolbox on wheels. Although the trial court suggests Simpson was hit approximately twenty feet from the truck, other statements contained in Simpson's affidavit and the police report would locate the point of impact to be somewhere between five and ten feet from the truck. In his affidavit, Simpson stated: I parked the Des Moines Waterworks' vehicle on the inside curb lane on N.E. 14th Street, south of Aurora Avenue, facing south. The lights of the company vehicle and directional arrow were activated and in use while I was working just outside of the vehicle. I was working on the valve that needed inspection when it was necessary for me to return to the Des Moines Waterworks' vehicle and get another tool. I was upon the Des Moines Waterworks' vehicle getting into the back of the vehicle to get the tool I needed when I was hit by a car operated by Marsha Lynn Warren. We conclude as a matter of law that, whether Simpson was twenty feet or five feet from the truck, he was an insured of USF & G at the time he was struck by the uninsured motorist. It is clear he was in close proximity to the truck when he was injured. He had left the location of the valve and was returning to the vehicle to pick up another tool. He was clearly engaged in an activity relating to the use of the specialized truck. The vehicle was not merely a means of transporting persons, but was designed and equipped to aid with water valve inspection, cleanup, and repair. Our decision is consistent with those in other states, in which uninsured motorist coverage has been extended to persons who are injured while using or occupying a vehicle. See First Sec. Bank v. Doe, 297 Ark. 254, 760 S.W.2d 863 (1988) (coverage extended to driver of tractor-trailer rig who was killed, when struck by hit-and-run driver, while standing on the street directing the backing of the truck, six to eight feet from the insured truck); White v. Williams, 563 So.2d 1316 (La.App.1990) (passenger was using or occupying vehicle when struck by uninsured motorist six or seven feet from his insured car after he had paid for gasoline and was returning to the car); Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Cassell, 239 Va. 421, 389 S.E.2d 476 (1990) (coverage provided when firefighter was killed, when struck by a hit-and-run driver twenty to twenty-five feet from the fire truck, while returning equipment to the truck); Rau v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 21 Wash.App. 326, 585 P.2d 157 (1978) (coverage upheld for a truck driver who was injured when struck by uninsured motorist, twenty feet from his truck, while returning to his truck after asking for directions about where to make the delivery).