This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The appellant was shot and paralyzed by a passenger in another vehicle during a confrontation at an intersection. The appellant exited his vehicle to confront the occupants of the other vehicle, which had earlier thrown a bottle at his vehicle. The shooter, seated in the other vehicle, fired multiple shots, injuring the appellant. The appellant sought coverage under his aunt's State Farm insurance policies, which included uninsured motorist and medical payment provisions (paras 1-5).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: Granted summary judgment in favor of State Farm, dismissing the appellant's claims for uninsured motorist and medical payment coverage (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant: Argued that he was covered under his aunt's State Farm policies, the shooting was an accident as defined in the policies, the injury arose out of the use of an uninsured vehicle, and he was entitled to recover from the owner or operator of the vehicle (para 6).
- State Farm (Appellee): Contended that the appellant was not legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of the uninsured vehicle, the injury did not arise out of the use of the vehicle, and the appellant was not entitled to medical payment coverage. State Farm also argued that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the appellant was an insured under the policies (para 7).
Legal Issues
- Was the appellant legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of the uninsured vehicle under the uninsured motorist coverage?
- Did the appellant's injury arise out of the use of an uninsured vehicle?
- Was the appellant entitled to medical payment coverage under the policies?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of State Farm, dismissing the appellant's claims for uninsured motorist and medical payment coverage (para 19).
Reasons
Per Sutin J. (Pickard and Kennedy JJ. concurring):
Uninsured Motorist Coverage: The court held that liability under uninsured motorist coverage requires fault on the part of the owner or operator of the uninsured vehicle. There was no evidence that the owner or driver of the vehicle knew about the firearm or facilitated the shooting. The mere presence of the shooter in the vehicle was insufficient to establish liability. The appellant could not establish fault on the part of the owner or operator, and thus, State Farm was not liable under the uninsured motorist coverage (paras 11-16).
Medical Payment Coverage: The court found that the appellant was not "occupying" the insured vehicle at the time of the injury. The appellant had exited the vehicle and was injured while retreating from a confrontation. The medical payment provision did not apply as the injury did not occur while the appellant was using or occupying the insured vehicle (paras 17-18).
The court concluded that the district court correctly applied the law to the undisputed facts and affirmed the summary judgment in favor of State Farm (para 19).