AIG Hawaii Insurance Company, Inc. v. The Estate of Nelson Caraang, et al.
851 P.2d 321 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Whether an injury is accidental and arises out of the use of a vehicle is determined from the perspective of the insured seeking coverage. An injury intentionally caused by a third party can be an 'accident' from the perspective of an innocent insured driver, triggering coverage if there is a sufficient causal connection between the vehicle's use and the injury.
Facts:
- Iimar Godinez was driving a truck owned by his father, with Emanuel Vilamor as a passenger.
- Godinez and Vilamor encountered Nelson Caraang, who had a history of animosity with Vilamor.
- Caraang began aggressively pursuing their truck in his own vehicle, yelling taunts and challenging Vilamor to a 'shoot out'.
- Godinez, attempting to evade Caraang, drove onto the H-1 Freeway and then the Pali Highway, with Caraang in hot pursuit.
- Godinez was unaware that Vilamor was in possession of a gun.
- As the vehicles drove up the Pali Highway, Vilamor stood up on the passenger seat, protruded from the window, and shot Caraang.
- Caraang died as a result of the gunshot wound.
Procedural Posture:
- AIG Insurance Company, Inc. (AIG) filed a complaint for declaratory relief in the circuit court (trial court) against the Estate of Nelson Caraang, Iimar Godinez, and Emanuel Vilamor.
- AIG sought a judgment declaring it had no contractual duty to defend or indemnify Godinez or Vilamor for claims arising from Nelson Caraang's death.
- Following a jury-waived trial, the circuit court entered judgment in favor of AIG, ruling that AIG had no duty to defend or indemnify either Godinez or Vilamor.
- The Estate of Nelson Caraang (the Caraangs) appealed the circuit court's judgment.
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 an automobile insurance policy covering bodily injury from an 'auto accident' arising from the 'use' of a vehicle require the insurer to defend and indemnify a driver who was unaware that his passenger would intentionally shoot and kill a person in another car during a hostile pursuit?
Opinions:
Majority - Levinson, J.
Yes, the automobile insurance policy requires the insurer to defend and indemnify the driver, Godinez. The determination of whether an injury is an 'accident' must be made from the viewpoint of the specific insured seeking coverage. From Godinez's perspective, the shooting was an unforeseen and unexpected event, as he was unaware Vilamor had a gun and was actively trying to evade the confrontation. Therefore, for Godinez, the death was accidental. Furthermore, the death 'arose out of the use' of the vehicle because the truck was not merely the location of the shooting but an 'active accessory' to it; the entire incident was a mobile conflict centered on the pursuit and operation of the two vehicles. Conversely, from the shooter Vilamor's perspective, the act was intentional and thus excluded from coverage.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the 'insured's perspective' test for determining whether an event is an 'accident' under an auto insurance policy. It clarifies that a single event can be deemed 'accidental' for one insured (an innocent driver) while being 'intentional' for another (a criminal passenger). The case is significant for establishing that a criminal act by a third party does not automatically sever the causal chain for 'arising out of the use' of a vehicle, so long as the vehicle's use is integral to the incident and not merely incidental. This expands potential coverage for innocent vehicle operators caught in violent situations instigated by others.
