Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Jeffrey Todd McKiddy appeals the trial court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of Trinity Lloyd’s Insurance Company. The court found McKiddy was not “occupying” the vehicle covered by Trinity’s insurance policy; McKiddy, therefore, was not entitled to coverage under Trinity’s policy. McKiddy was injured when a car driven by Joe Smith skidded off an icy road into McKiddy. McKiddy had been a passenger in a car owned by Eddie Deen and Co. Inc.; the Deen car had also skidded off the road. After the Deen car slid off the road, McKiddy and the other occupants of the Deen car exited their vehicle. While McKiddy was outside the Deen car, Smith’s car hit McKiddy, causing injury. McKiddy received coverage from Smith’s insurance up to the limits of his policy. McKiddy then sought coverage under the underinsured motorist provision of the policy covering the Deen vehicle. The policy had been issued by Trinity, and Trinity denied coverage stating McKiddy was not “occupying” the Deen vehicle. HOLDING:Affirmed. Trinity moved for summary judgment on the basis that McKiddy had not been “occupying” the Deen vehicle at the time of the accident. The court granted the summary judgment, declaring McKiddy had not been “occupying” the Deen vehicle. In each of his three issues on appeal, McKiddy argues the court erred because he was “occupying” the Deen vehicle under the definition of the policy. In his first issue, McKiddy contends that because he was in physical contact with the Deen vehicle, he was “upon” it. McKiddy relies on case law finding coverage when a person was in contact with a covered vehicle when struck by another vehicle. However, McKiddy does not direct this court to any evidence (properly before the court on appeal) that McKiddy was in contact with � or even next to � the Deen vehicle when Smith hit McKiddy. The court finds no causal connection between McKiddy’s injuries and the covered vehicle. The only evidence showing how far McKiddy was from the covered vehicle was McKiddy’s deposition he was no more than 10 feet from it. In his deposition, Smith agreed it would be difficult to say how far McKiddy had been from the Deen vehicle, that he was not prepared to estimate the distance, and that he could not “swear” where McKiddy had been. This shows Smith’s distance testimony was merely conjecture, which is incompetent summary judgment evidence. However, McKiddy stated in his testimony he was walking toward another vehicle owned by Deen when he was struck, not walking back to the covered vehicle in which he had previously been a passenger. McKiddy produced no evidence showing how long he had been out of the covered vehicle before being struck by Smith, and McKiddy produced no evidence showing his injuries were related to any impact with the Deen vehicle. Accordingly, the court concludes McKiddy failed to provide more than a scintilla of probative evidence to raise a fact issue on whether there was a causal connection between McKiddy’s injuries and the covered vehicle. McKiddy argues the term “occupying” is ambiguous and must therefore be construed in favor of coverage. The court concludes the language is not ambiguous. OPINION:James, J.; James, Wright and Bridges, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.