Third Circuit Rules Against Allstate In Coverage Dispute

ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CAS. INS. CO. v. Squires, 667 F. 3d 388 - Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 2012 - Google Scholar:

Squires was injured in an accident and sought insurance coverage under the uninsured motorist clause of his automobile insurance policy.  The case was governed by Pennsylvania law.  The trial court ruled in favor of Allstate, but the Third Circuit reversed.  Squires was injured by a box dropped from another vehicle which caused him to have a car accident.

The court summarized the issue as follows: "Accordingly, the sole issue that the Court decided was "whether an accident caused by a box which fell from an uninsured motor vehicle can be attributed, as a matter of law, to the `ownership, maintenance or use' of an automobile." App. at 5. The Court answered this question in the negative, concluding that there is UM coverage for policies containing the "arising out of" language only when a vehicle—and not some other object such as the box—was "the instrumentality causing . . . the [a]ccident." App. at 11. Accordingly, on March 2, 2011, the Court granted Allstate's motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied its motion to dismiss the counterclaims as moot, and dismissed Squires's counterclaims as moot."


The third circuit disagreed on the ground that because the box was dropped from another vehicle, the accident was attributed to the "ownership, maintenance or use" of an automobile.  Because Allstate conceded that the accident was caused by a box dropped from another vehicle, the accident was caused by the "ownership, maintenance or use" of an automobile.


Edward X. Clinton, Jr.




'via Blog this'