How Are You Using Your Ve…

In a recent decision, the Virginia Supreme Court upheld both the trial court’s and Court of Appeals’ decisions to extend medical benefits under an auto insurance policy to cover injuries sustained by the insured while he was loading luggage into the back seat of his vehicle.

Bruce Estep and his family were checking out of their Fairfax, Virginia, hotel in the fall of 2016, preparing for their return trip home to Chesapeake. Estep began transferring the suitcases from the luggage cart into the back seat of his SUV. As he leaned into the vehicle to adjust the baggage, a wind arose, propelling the luggage cart into Estep’s side, causing him to fall to the ground. Estep suffered severe injuries as a result of the fall and incurred substantial medical expenses.

Estep sought reimbursement of his medical expenses through his personal automobile policy, which included medical benefits coverage. When his insurer, USAA, denied his claim, Estep filed suit in Chesapeake Circuit Court. Both sides filed motions for summary judgment and the trial court held in favor of Estep, awarding him $30,000.00 under the USAA policy.

USAA appealed the trial court’s decision, maintaining that Estep’s policy paid out medical benefits only for those injuries arising out of the “ownership, maintenance, and use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle,” and only when the individual was “in or upon, entering or alighting from” the vehicle.

On appeal, the Court examined the case law relating to “occupation and use” of a vehicle, stating that the chief inquiry is whether a causal relationship exists between the incident and the use of the insured vehicle as a vehicle. Such an inquiry does not restrict use of the vehicle to only its transportation purposes. The Court agreed that Estep was “using his car as a car” when loading his family’s luggage into it with the intent of driving his family and their luggage home, concluding that loading a trunk with luggage is a legitimate and expected use of a vehicle. “Simply put, transporting luggage is a valid and expected use of a vehicle, and one cannot transport the baggage without first packing the vehicle.” United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Estep, 77 Va. App. 16, 24 (2023).

USAA argued that under Virginia law, if an accident would have occurred regardless of the insured’s use of the vehicle, then there was no coverage. In other words, the luggage cart, having been set in motion by the wind, could have hit Estep regardless of the presence of his vehicle. But the trial court disagreed, reasoning that the cart was present to assist with the use of the vehicle. The Court of Appeals upheld this reasoning, stating, “it was a car-loading accident that occurred in a car-loading area and involved car-loading equipment, [which] …occurred in connection with an imminent drive home….” Id. at 28.

Next, the Court of Appeals examined whether Estep was “in or upon” or otherwise occupying the vehicle, as required by the policy and by Virginia Code §38.2-2201(A). Occupancy of the vehicle involves being either in, upon, entering, or alighting from it. The Court of Appeals determined that Estep was “upon” the vehicle as a result of his “physical presence halfway inside his car while engaging in conduct consistent with his occupancy of the car,” based upon his intent to get in and drive home. Id. at 30. These actions were sufficient to trigger coverage under Estep’s policy language.

The Court, affirming the trial court’s decision, held that Estep was both occupying and using his vehicle for its intended purposes, and therefore Estep’s medical expenses were covered under his policy. The Court concluded that a central purpose of car insurance policies is to provide medical benefits for injuries that occur while a policy holder is occupying his car and using it for one of its intended purposes.

The dissenting opinion noted that although Estep was occupying the vehicle at the time of the accident, his injuries did not result from an “accident arising out of his use of the vehicle.” The dissent opined that Estep’s injuries were merely tangential to his use of the vehicle, stating, “…the simple fact that Estep was loading the vehicle when he was injured does not necessarily render the accident ‘vehicle-caused.’” Id. at 33.

The Supreme Court considered the lower courts’ decisions, the briefs of the parties, and the oral arguments of counsel and found no reversible error. United Services Automobile Association v. Estep, Va. Sup. Ct. Record No. 230323 (Court of Appeals No. 0391-22-1), March 14, 2024.

If you have questions about this article, or more general insurance issues, please contact Denise Reverski (dreverski@setlifflaw.com) at 804-377-1272, or Steve Setliff (ssetliff@setlifflaw.com) at 804-377-1261.