Court Opinion

ID: 9552985
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:20:02.746251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:29:28.169673
License: Public Domain

Judge TURSI
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
The supreme court has twice reversed our court’s narrow construction of “use” as contained in standard automobile insurance policies. See Cung La v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Co., 830 P.2d 1007 (Colo.1992), rev’g State Farm Insurance Co. v. Cung La, 819 P.2d 537 (Colo.App.1991) and Kohl v. Union Insurance Co., 731 P.2d 134 (Colo.1986), rev’g Union Insurance Co. v. Connelly, 694 P.2d 354 (Colo.App.1984). I believe the message from our supreme court on this question is clear, and I would follow it.
It is stipulated that the uninsured driver was using the vehicle to transport himself and the pit bull when stopped by the police officers.
The trial court found the pertinent facts to be that the plaintiff was one of two police officers involved in the stop and arrest of a man driving an uninsured automobile. The man was removed from the car and placed on the ground to be handcuffed. Almost at the same moment a pit bull riding in the car jumped out, menaced both police officers, and bit the plaintiff, causing serious and permanent injury. The dog was not called out of the car by the driver.
Under these circumstances, the factual issues militate against granting the insurer a summary judgment because, under all of the attendant circumstances here, a jury could reasonably infer that the driver’s use of the vehicle was negligent and that this negligence was causally connected to the plaintiffs injuries.
In Kohl v. Union Insurance Co., supra, a loaded rifle was being carried in a jeep. When the insured driver sought to unload the rifle, it discharged, killing one person and wounding Kohl and a third person who were conversing in the parking lot.
Rejecting the insurer’s argument that it was the use of the rifle, rather than the use of the automobile, that was the sole causal connection to the injury, our supreme court held that the defendant’s “actions were inti*34mately related to the use of the vehicle as transportation for himself and his rifle_” Kohl v. Union Insurance Co., supra at 137.
• Here, similar to the situation in Kohl, a jury could reasonably infer that £he transporting of an unleashed pit bull in a vehicle was negligent use and causally connected to the injuries sustained by the plaintiff when the dog’s master was ordered out of the vehicle and, in front of an opened door, was placed on the ground and handcuffed.
Therefore, I would reverse the summary judgment in favor of the insurer and remand for trial on the merits.