Opinion ID: 2402764
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The terms of the policy

Text: The general provisions of the basic liability policy make it clear that coverage extends to persons, including employees of B & D Trucking, Inc., using the vehicle with permission. The uninsured motorist endorsement, however, describes who is insured, in pertinent part as follows: 1. You [the named insured] or any family member. 2. Anyone else occupying a covered auto.... U.S. Fire successfully argued to the trial court that, as James had dismounted the truck and was standing some six to eight feet away from it at the time he was hit and killed, he was not covered by the uninsured motorist provisions because he was not occupying the vehicle when he was killed. We have not had occasion to define the term occupying in the context presented here. In Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Fields, 262 Ark. 144, 553 S.W.2d 278 (1977), we dealt with whether a school child was occupying a school bus. The child had left the bus and was crossing a street when she was injured. We held she was not occupying the bus because the insurance policy being interpreted defined occupying in such a way as to require physical contact with the vehicle. We have not had a case in which we interpreted the word as it is usually defined in insurance policies and as it is defined in the policy we now consider. That definition is, upon, getting in, on, out of or off. Defined in that way, the term occupying has been given liberal interpretation in many jurisdictions. See, e.g., Sayers v. Safeco Ins. Co., 628 P.2d 659 (Mont.1981); Manning v. Summit Home Ins. Co., 128 Ariz. 79, 623 P.2d 1235 (Ariz.App.1980); State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v. Holmes, 175 Ga.App. 655, 333 S.E.2d 917 (1985). These cases have, in general, considered matters such as the amount of time which had passed between the time the claimant departed the vehicle and the time of the injury, the relative distance of the claimant from the vehicle, whether the claimant had reached a point of safety after leaving the vehicle, and whether the claimant was still oriented to the vehicle. Other cases have been stricter. See, e.g., Testone v. Allstate Ins. Co., 165 Conn. 126, 328 A.2d 686 (1973); Miller v. Loman, 518 N.E.2d 486 (Ind.App. 1987); Greer v. Kenilworth Ins. Co., 60 Ill.App.3d 22, 17 Ill.Dec. 347, 376 N.E.2d 346 (1978). We need not determine whether James was occupying the vehicle, however, because we agree with the bank's argument that he was covered by the policy as a user of the vehicle because our statute requires it.