This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A minor child was sexually molested by a neighbor on multiple occasions, including in the neighbor's uninsured vehicle during a trip. The child suffered emotional and cognitive injuries, such as sleep disruption, anxiety, and difficulty concentrating, but no physical injuries like bruises or cuts. The child’s guardian sought coverage under the uninsured motorist (UM) provisions of the parents’ automobile insurance policies, arguing that the injuries constituted "bodily injury" as defined in the policies (paras 2-5).
Procedural History
- District Court of Doña Ana County: Granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, holding that the child’s injuries constituted "bodily injury" under the UM policies and that the uninsured vehicle was an "active accessory" in causing the injury (para 6).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that the child’s emotional and cognitive injuries, including physical manifestations such as sleep disruption and cognitive confusion, constituted "bodily injury" under the UM policies. Further, the uninsured vehicle was an active accessory in causing these injuries (paras 3, 6, and 10).
- Defendant-Appellant (State Farm): Contended that the child’s injuries did not meet the definition of "bodily injury" under the policies, as they lacked physical harm such as bruises or cuts. State Farm also disputed whether the injuries arose from the use of the uninsured vehicle (paras 3, 6, and 10).
Legal Issues
- Did the child suffer "bodily injury" as defined in the uninsured motorist policies?
- If so, did the "bodily injury" arise out of the use of an uninsured motor vehicle?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s decision and remanded the case with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of State Farm (para 12).
Reasons
Per Vigil J. (Wechsler and Castillo JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the child’s injuries did not constitute "bodily injury" under the UM policies. The policies defined "bodily injury" as "bodily injury to a person and sickness, disease or death which results from it." Relying on precedent, including Gonzales v. Allstate Insurance Co. and Economy Preferred Insurance Co. v. Jia, the Court concluded that emotional and cognitive injuries, even with physical manifestations, do not meet the definition of "bodily injury" unless there is direct physical harm (paras 7-10).
The Court emphasized that the stipulated facts showed no physical injuries such as bruises or cuts, and the child’s symptoms were similar to those in Economy Preferred, where emotional injuries with physical symptoms were deemed insufficient to constitute "bodily injury" (paras 10-11).
Given this conclusion, the Court did not address whether the injuries arose from the use of the uninsured vehicle. However, it noted that State Farm was bound by its stipulation that the neighbor admitted to the sexual touching in the vehicle for purposes of the summary judgment motions (para 11).