Author: Richard H. Adler

Let's assume you were just appointed by the governor of the state of Washington to be a trial judge for the superior court of the county in which you live whether that be King, Pierce, Snohomish, Skagit, Walla Walla or beyond. One of your first cases is a most interesting one, involving a legal issue that will have important implications for the parties appearing before you as well as future cases. You are presented with the following facts and need to make a decision.

A doctor was in his camper. The camper was attached to his pickup truck. As the doctor stepped down to a footstool from the camper he lost his balance, slipped, hit the tailgate, and landed on the ground. The doctor made a personal injury protection (PIP) claim under his automobile insurance policy for his injuries and damages from this incident. His insurance company said there was no coverage because this was "not a motor vehicle accident." The only claim the doctor was pursuing was for payment of the medical bills under the no fault, PIP portion of the automobile insurance policy.

Should there be coverage in this situation? This fact situation was the one presented in the actual case Tyrrell v. Farmers Insurance. That case was heard by the trial court, then the Washington Court of Appeals with the final decision of the Washington Supreme Court in January 2000. The decision by the Supreme Court was reported at 140 Wn.2d 129. The trial court and the court of appeals both agreed there was coverage. The basis of their decision was a review of the contract between Farmers Insurance and the insured, Dr. Tyrrell. The term "motor vehicle accident" was in the policy but was not defined to mean just a collision with one vehicle and another. An accident involving a motor vehicle can involve exiting the vehicle and falling on something from the vehicle.

The Supreme Court disagreed and reversed the lower courts. In finding there was no coverage for the doctors care expenses under the policy the court stated:

The definition of `motor vehicle accident' that Tyrrell arrives at is more expansive: [A]ny unforeseen or unexpected bodily injury resulting from the use of a self-propelled device capable of moving upon a public highway.' Resp't's Br. at 13(emphasis added). An image that easily comes to mind is an insured tripping while making the oft-difficult step down from the high doorway of a pickup truck or sports utility vehicle. Another is tripping — over, say, the threshold or a seatbelt — while entering a vehicle. Making all such accidents `motor vehicle accidents' for insurance purposes is a logical extension of the Court of Appeals' holding that `the use of a vehicle depends on an insured's ability to safely enter and exit it.' Tyrrell, 94 Wn. App. at 325..... the sensible and popular understanding of what a `motor vehicle ccident' entails necessarily involves the motor vehicle being operated as a motor vehicle. See Pet. for Review at 9. A motor vehicle is being operated as a motor vehicle when it is being driven or when it is stopped while being driven. For example, if a tree limb were to fall on the motor vehicle while a person was riving or had stopped while driving, that would constitute a `motor vehicle accident.' On the other hand, a motor vehicle is not being operated as a motor vehicle when parked.

Who was right? If you are in an unusual factual situation and are having difficulties with your insurance company or an at fault drivers insurance company, the attorneys at Adler Giersch ps stand ready to assist you through our offices in Seattle, Bellevue, Everett, and Kent.