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 Plaintiff was driving a vehicle insured by the Defendant when a tire went flat. After parking the vehicle on the side of the highway, the Plaintiff left to retrieve a spare tire with the assistance of a passing motorist. Upon returning, while retrieving the spare tire from the assisting motorist's truck, the Plaintiff was struck by an uninsured motorist and sustained injuries (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court, Luna County: Granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant, holding that the Plaintiff was not "occupying" the insured vehicle at the time of the accident (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that he was "occupying" the insured vehicle at the time of the accident because his actions were directly related to its use and repair, and he was in close proximity to it when struck (paras 4, 12-13).
- Defendant-Appellee: Contended that the Plaintiff was not "occupying" the insured vehicle as he had left it to retrieve a spare tire and was instead "transaction-oriented" to the assisting motorist's truck at the time of the accident (paras 5, 14).
Legal Issues
- Whether the Plaintiff was "occupying" the insured vehicle at the time of the accident, thereby entitling him to uninsured motorist coverage under the Defendant's policy.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the Defendant and remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff (paras 1, 18-19).
Reasons
Per Wechsler J. (Alarid and Armijo JJ. concurring):
The Court applied a "transaction-oriented" approach to determine whether the Plaintiff was "occupying" the insured vehicle. It concluded that the Plaintiff was engaged in a transaction essential to the use of the insured vehicle—repairing it to continue its use—at the time of the accident. The Plaintiff was in close proximity to the insured vehicle (six to eight feet away) and his actions were causally connected to its use. The Court rejected the Defendant's argument that the Plaintiff's relationship with the insured vehicle was severed when he left to retrieve the spare tire, finding that his activities remained oriented to the insured vehicle (paras 7-13).
The Court also declined to adopt a mutual exclusivity rule, which would preclude a person from "occupying" more than one vehicle at a time, and emphasized that the uninsured motorist statute and policy language should be interpreted broadly to provide coverage consistent with the statute's purpose of compensating those injured through no fault of their own (paras 14-17).