A person killed during an assault percipated by a motor vehicle accident is entitled to benefits under his automobile policy.
This was an appeal by the family and estate of the Insured ("Arruda") from a decision concluding that the Insurer ("Allstate") was not required to pay them benefits under an automobile insurance policy was dismissed where the Court found that the death of Arruda did not result directly from the use of the vehicle. The assault was clearly percipated by an automobile accident, however Arruda left his vehicle with a baseball bat and was killed by the occupants of the other vehicle who were armed with knives. The occupants of the other vehicle were convicted of manslaughter.
The case citation is: Haekel v. Allstate Insurance Co. [2007] A.J. No. 1441. Alberta Court of Appeal. McFadyen, Ritter and Martin JJ.A. December 20, 2007. This decision is also referred to as Arruda [Estate] v. Allstate Insurance Co.
Here is a link to the decision.
This case was orginally summarized by Jonathan Meadows and edited by David Pilley.
Arruda was fatally stabbed after a collision involving his vehicle and one or two other vehicles. His vehicle had been brushed by the others and shot at by the occupants before the other vehicles left the scene. Arruda called 911. While waiting for the police arrive, Arruda stood behind his vehicle armed with a baseball bat. The other vehicle returned, its occupants armed with knives. Arruda was unable to defend himself and died at the scene before the police arrived. The occupants of the other vehicle were convicted of manslaughter in Arruda's death.
Arruda's insurance policy provided for the payment of benefits if his death arose directly, and independently from all other causes, from the use or operation of an automobile. At trial, the Court had found that Arruda's death was not caused by an accident arising from the use or operation of an automobile. The Court agreed that Arruda would not have died had he not been driving his vehicle on the night of the incident. However, the Court considered the temporal distance between the end of Arruda's driving and his death. The Court found that the attack was a clear intervening event between Arruda's use of his vehicle and his death, outside the ordinary use or operation of a vehicle, breaking the chain of causation. The Court further found that the use of the vehicle was not the dominant feature of Arruda's injuries, but was merely ancillary. The family of Arruda appealed this decision.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Trial Judge was correct in finding that the case turned on causation. The phrase "directly and independently of all other causes" in the policy narrowed the broad scope of coverage. The chain of causation could not be broken for the policy provision to apply. In this case, no injury resulted or arose directly from Arruda's use of the vehicle. Arruda's injuries and death were caused by the assault, an independent and intervening cause, which precluded recovery under the policy.
