“Use” of a Vehicle is not a Use Completely Foreign to a Vehicle’s Inherent Purpose

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sexual-assault-auto-use-barry-zalma-esq-cfe and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 3850 posts.

Amy was sexually assaulted by Cody Triebs inside the cab of Triebs’ pickup truck and on the truck’s tailgate. At issue in this appeal is whether insurance policies issued by 1st Auto & Casualty Insurance Company and Progressive Universal Insurance Company provide uninsured motorist (UM) coverage for Amy’s injuries. In 1st Auto & Casualty Insurance Company v. A. P., a minor, R. P. and J. P. v. Cody Triebs, Progressive Universal Insurance Company, No. 2020AP1745, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District III (July 20, 2021) the Wisconsin Court of Appeal resolved the dispute after the circuit court granted summary judgment to 1st Auto and Progressive, concluding their respective policies do not provide UM coverage because Amy’s injuries from the sexual assault did not arise out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of an uninsured motor vehicle.

ZALMA OPINION

The rape of a minor is clearly an intentional act. However, since the facts of the rape were disputed the court avoided the intentional act exclusion and the lack of fortuity, and simply found no coverage because rape of a minor could never be considered the intended and inherent use of a motor vehicle.