Boulter v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.
321 F. Supp. 3d 1199 (2018)
Rule of Law:
Under Montana law, a person is considered 'occupying' a vehicle for uninsured motorist coverage if their activities at the time of injury were reasonably connected to the insured vehicle, such as briefly exiting and returning during a work-related road trip; additionally, 'hit-and-run' clauses requiring physical contact for uninsured motorist coverage are void and unenforceable in Montana, Colorado, and Florida.
Facts:
- Donald Boulter began his workday on March 24, 2014, driving a work van with a co-worker from Bozeman to Billings to deliver material, with a further destination of Buffalo, Wyoming.
- After dropping off the first load in Billings, Boulter parked the work van in a McDonald's parking lot and entered the restaurant to order a to-go breakfast before continuing the trip.
- Upon receiving his order, Boulter exited the McDonald's and began walking back towards his work van, which was approximately 60 feet away.
- While walking back, an unknown motorist drove past Boulter in a rushed manner, causing Boulter to step backwards to get out of the way, slip, and fall to the ground.
- Boulter suffered a serious head injury and was later life-flighted for specialty care of a subdural hemorrhage and craniotomy.
- The unknown motorist was never identified.
- Boulter's employer insured the work van under a policy issued by The Hartford Fire Insurance Company, which provided uninsured motorist coverage to an "insured" defined as anyone "occupying" a covered auto, with "occupying" meaning "in, upon, getting in, on, out or off."
- The policy defined an "uninsured motor vehicle" as a hit-and-run vehicle where neither driver nor owner can be identified, and which must hit an "insured," a covered "auto," or a vehicle an "insured" is "occupying."
Procedural Posture:
- Donald Boulter made a claim for uninsured motorist coverage with The Hartford Fire Insurance Company after his injury.
- Hartford Fire denied Boulter coverage, asserting he was not 'occupying' the work van when injured.
- Boulter filed a lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment in state district court, requesting a ruling that he was an 'insured' under the policy.
- Hartford Fire removed the case from state court to the United States District Court for the District of Montana.
- Both parties filed simultaneous motions for summary judgment on two issues: whether Boulter was an 'insured' under the policy and whether the unknown motorist was an 'uninsured motor vehicle' under the policy.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a person qualify as 'occupying' a vehicle for uninsured motorist coverage when they are injured while walking back to the vehicle in a parking lot after a brief, temporary exit during a work-related road trip, under an insurance policy defining 'occupying' as 'in, upon, getting in, on, out or off'?
Opinions:
Majority - Susan P. Watters
Yes, Donald Boulter was 'occupying' the work van for uninsured motorist coverage because his activities were reasonably connected to the vehicle, and the unknown motorist was an 'uninsured motor vehicle' because the policy's 'hit-and-run' clause requiring physical contact is void and unenforceable. The court applied the Montana Supreme Court's 'reasonable connection test' to interpret the 'occupying' clause, rejecting a strict, plain-meaning interpretation of the policy's terms. This test asks whether the claimant's activities at the time of the accident were so reasonably connected to the insured auto that the claimant could be said to be an occupant within the policy's meaning, allowing for a reasonable length of time and distance after exiting for expected acts. The court found Boulter's actions—briefly exiting to get food during a long work trip and returning to the van—were materially indistinguishable from activities previously deemed reasonably connected to a vehicle, such as walking for help (Nelson), or attempting to jump start a car (Sayers), or even those that would foreseeably occur on a long road trip (e.g., getting gas, using a restroom). The court distinguished these from situations like Richerson, where there was no reasonable connection to the vehicle's operation. Furthermore, the court held that the policy's 'hit-and-run' clause, which required physical contact between the uninsured vehicle and the insured, covered auto, or occupying insured, was void and unenforceable under Montana law (McGlynn v. Safeco Companies of America). The court noted that similar clauses are also void in Colorado and Florida, making the enforceability irrelevant of where the policy was issued or delivered. Therefore, the unknown motorist qualified as an uninsured motor vehicle.
Analysis:
This case reinforces Montana's broad interpretation of 'occupying' clauses in uninsured motorist policies, emphasizing the 'reasonable connection test' over literal contract language. It expands the scope of coverage by including routine, temporary departures from a vehicle that are integral to its use on a journey. The decision also solidifies the unenforceability of physical contact requirements in 'hit-and-run' clauses, ensuring broader protection for insureds. Future cases in Montana will likely continue to apply the 'reasonable connection test' flexibly, considering the context and purpose of a claimant's temporary exit from a vehicle.
