Court Opinion

ID: 9747380
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 15:13:25.825523+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:23.384073
License: Public Domain

DANA, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. Because Genthner was neither “in, on, getting into, out of or off’ the Conroy vehicle at the time of the “accident,” he was not “occupying” the vehicle at that time. As a consequence, the Conroy insurance policy does not provide coverage. As applied to the facts of this ease, it is difficult to envisage a less ambiguous definition of the word “occupying” than the one contained in the policy. If it is *483ambiguous, any reformulation would be as well. Labeling a word ambiguous, however, does not make it so. Genthner voluntarily left the insured vehicle and was walking away from it to identify the assailant. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company did not provide insurance for such an undertaking. I would affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.1

. Some courts that have .ignored the "plain meaning” approach use a four part test to determine whether a person who is not actually in a vehicle or in direct physical contact with the vehicle, may be considered to be "occupying” the vehicle for purpose of uninsured motorist coverage; (1) there is a casual relation or connection between the injury and the use of the insured vehicle; (2) the person asserting coverage must be in a reasonably close geographic proximity to the insured vehicle, although the person need not be actually touching it; (3) the person must be vehicle oriented rather than highway oriented or sidewalk oriented at the time; and (4) the person must also be engaged in a transaction essential to the use of the vehicle at the time. Utica Mutual Ins. Co. v. Contrisciane, 504 Pa. 328, 473 A.2d 1005, 1009 (1984). Applying this four part test to the facts of this case show that Genthner was not vehicle oriented because he was walking away from vehicle and his actions were not required as a result of the vehicle’s condition and his attempt to get the truck’s registration number was not essential to Conroy's vehicle’s operation or was necessary to continue their trip. See General Accident Ins. Co. v. Olivier, 574 A.2d 1240 (R.I.1990).