New Hampshire: Woman Who Fell While Carrying Groceries Not 'Occupying' Auto for Coverage Purposes, Court Rules

New Hampshire's Supreme Court recently held that a woman who slipped and fell on ice while carrying groceries from her car was not entitled to medical payments coverage from her insurer because she was not "occupying" the car at the time she fell.

In D'Amour v. Amica Mutual Insurance Co., decided Jan. 18, the claimant parked her car and removed several items including groceries from the back of the vehicle. She walked to the rear of the car and fell before reaching the walkway near her apartment.

The claimant's policy provided that the insurer would "pay reasonable expenses incurred for necessary medical . . . services because of bodily injury . . . sustained by an insured." It defined "insured" as "you or any family member . . . while occupying . . . a motor vehicle . . ." and it defined "occupying" as "in, upon, getting in, on, out or off."

The claimant argued that she was occupying the vehicle for coverage purposes because she was in the process of "getting out of" the vehicle when she fell. She contended that the term "occupying" in the policy was ambiguous when it came to what "getting out of" meant, so that it should be construed in her favor. Amica argued that a mere disagreement over the term did not render it ambiguous and maintained that the claimant was no longer getting out of the vehicle when she fell.

In addressing whether the claimant could be considered "occupying" the vehicle, the Court reviewed case law addressing whether claimants are "vehicle oriented" as opposed to "pedestrian or sidewalk oriented." The Court agreed with the assertion that a person could be considered "vehicle oriented" and therefore "occupying" while moving from an auto to a place of safety. However, the Court concluded that the claimant in this case did not fall within that definition.

Affirming a summary judgment in favor of the insurer, the Court concluded that the claimant was not occupying the vehicle for coverage purposes because she "had severed her connection to her vehicle" at the time of her injury.

Direct questions to NAMIC State Affairs Manager Paul Tetrault.

Posted: Monday, February 27, 2006 12:00:00 AM. Modified: Monday, February 27, 2006 9:30:39 AM.

(317) 875-5250 - Indianapolis | (202) 628-1558 - Washington, D.C.

Contact NAMIC | Press | Advertise | Sponsor

We are 1,400 property/casualty insurance companies serving more than 135 million auto, home and business policyholders, with more than $196 billion in premiums accounting for 50 percent of the automobile/homeowners market and 31 percent of the business insurance market. We are the largest and most diverse property/casualty trade association in the country, with regional and local mutual insurance companies on main streets across America joining many of the country’s largest national insurers who also call NAMIC their home. More than 200,000 people are employed by NAMIC members.