Author: Richard H. Adler

Let's assume that 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 be that King, Snohomish, Pierce, 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:

James was walking alongside a sidewalk between a parking lot and a restaurant as Jeannette was trying to park her car. Jeanette's car it lurched forward, knocking down the handicapped parking sign, jumping the curb, and hitting James. James was quite shaken by this and somewhat in shock such that he could not get out of the way as the car backed up several feet, then lurched forward again hitting him a second time. James received serious personal injuries and damages whose value clearly exceeded the amount of automobile liability insurance coverage Jeannette had with her insurance company. In an attempt to obtain a full and fair recovery, James claimed his injuries were the result of "two separate" accidents. Jeannette's liability insurer claimed there was all one accident.
Your research and that of the parties agree there is no Washington case from the court of appeals or the supreme court which directly provides the answer whether one or two accidents occurs for purposes of insurance coverage when a single vehicle strikes the same person twice in rapid succession.

What would you do and why? This fact situation was presented in the actual case of Pemco Mutual Insurance Co. v. Utterback, 91 Wn.App 764, 1998. The Court of Appeals held just one accident occurred. In doing so the court stated:

The interdependent nature of the two impacts and their continuity and proximity in time and location all require the conclusion that just one accident occurred. Like the drivers in Rohde, Bish and Welter, Ms. Heinz-Naehr never regained control over the situation. There was just one proximate and continuing cause of both impacts. Ms. Heinz-Naehr's initial negligence that caused her to lose control of the vehicle. The second impact occurred while she was attempting to extricate herself from the situation caused by the first impact and followed directly from it.

What would you have decided? If you are in a difficult situation as a result of a traumatic personal injury and are having problems with your insurance company or an at fault drivers insurance company, the attorneys at Adler Giersch stand ready to assist you through our offices in Seattle, Bellevue, Everett, and Kent.