Opinion ID: 173967
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: did michael fisher's death arise out of the use of an uninsured motor vehicle?

Text: Pursuant to Colo.Rev.Stat. § 10-4-609(1)(a), automobile insurers in Colorado are require[d] . . . to provide coverage against uninsured motorists for injuries `arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle,' unless rejected in writing by the insured. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Kastner, 77 P.3d 1256, 1260 (Colo.2003) (quoting Colo.Rev. Stat. § 10-4-609(1)(a)). Accordingly, the Colorado Supreme Court has noted that all UM policy provisions in Colorado automobile insurance contracts are express attempts to conform to statutory requirements, [1] and thus, that the judicial interpretation of such provisions should reflect the overall legislative purpose of the UM. . . statute[] which is to provide compensation for injury caused by an uninsured motorist equal to that obtainable for injury caused by an insured motorist. See id. (internal quotation marks omitted). To this end, the Colorado Supreme Court, in Kastner, adopted a two-part test to determine whether UM benefits are available under a Colorado automobile insurance policy. To be entitled to benefits, a claimant must first demonstrate that an uninsured motor vehicle was being used at the time he or she sustained an injury. Id. at 1261. If so, the next prong of the inquiry is whether the `use' is causally related to the . . . injury. Id. at 1263. We address each of Kastner 's two prongs in order.