Concord General Mutual Insurance v. Doe, 161 N.H. 73

Doe, a minor, was assaulted by her former teacher McGonagle between 1999-2000, primarily in his vehicle, causing physical and psychological harm.
Doe was insured under Concord General automobile and umbrella policies; McGonagle’s vehicle was insured by Mount Washington Insurance Corporation (Mt. Washington).
Mt. Washington denied coverage; Doe sought uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage from Concord General. Concord General sought a declaratory ruling that it had no obligation to provide coverage, or that Mt. Washington would offset if coverage existed.
The trial court granted Concord General’s summary judgment; Doe and Mt. Washington appealed, arguing Doe’s injuries arose out of the use of the vehicle.
The issue is whether Doe’s injuries originated from, grew out of, or flowed from McGonagle’s use of the vehicle, under Concord General’s uninsured motorist policy.
The court held that the injuries did not arise out of the use of the vehicle; the vehicle was the situs of the injuries, not the source of the harm.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Arising out of use of an uninsured vehicle	Doe: injuries arise from vehicle use (driving/being in vehicle).	Concord General: injuries must originate from vehicle use, not merely be near it.	Arising out requirement not met; injuries not originated from vehicle use.
Causal nexus between use and injury	But-for use channels access to injury; use related to assault.	Nexus too tenuous; vehicle merely situs of injury.	Insufficient causal nexus between vehicle use and injuries.
But-for causation standard	Vehicle enabled access, so but-for test should apply.	But-for is inappropriate for ‘arising out’ analysis; must be nexus with use.	Rejected but-for approach; focus on nexus with vehicle use.
Common carrier duty analogy	Voluntary transport by driver resembles common carrier duty.	No implied common carrier duty; not controlling here.	No implicit common carrier duty; not controlling.

Akerley v. Hartford Ins. Group, 136 N.H. 433 (1992) (vehicle as situs of injury; injury must flow from vehicle use)
Walsh v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 141 N.H. 374 (1996) (use of vehicle required to connect injury to automobile)
Wilson v. Progressive Northern Ins. Co., 151 N.H. 782 (2005) (injury from door closing part of using automobile)
Huntington Cab Co. v. American Fidelity & Casualty Co., 155 F.2d 117 (4th Cir. 1946) (common carrier-like duties not controlling here)
Roe v. Lawn, 418 Mass. 66 (1994) (injury nexus with vehicle use; not all but-for injuries suffice)
Commerce Ins. v. Ultimate Livery Service, 452 Mass. 639 (2008) (arising out does not equate to all events would not occur but for vehicle)
Erie Ins. Co. Exchange v. Jones, 248 Va. 437 (1994) (injury must be foreseeably identifiable with normal vehicle use)