Cornelius v. National Casualty Co.
2012 S.D. 29
S.D.2012Background
- Cornelius sued National Casualty to obtain uninsured motorist (UM) coverage for injuries while occupying a Live Line Maintenance bucket truck.
- The bucket truck was owned by Live Line Maintenance and insured by National Casualty; the policy had a liability exclusion for injuries to an employee.
- National Casualty denied liability coverage; the circuit court granted summary judgment denying UM benefits.
- Cornelius alleged the injuries resulted from Live Line Maintenance and Baldwin’s negligent maintenance of the bucket truck.
- The policy defines autos, mobile equipment, and the scope of UM coverage, and SD law requires interpreting policies with statutory aims in mind.
- The court reviewed whether the accident fell within the policy’s UM coverage and conducted statutory-policy interpretation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does UM coverage apply when the insured vehicle is the bucket truck and the insurer denied coverage? | Cornelius—bucket truck is an insured auto; UM applies since the vehicle involved is uninsured due to denial. | National Casualty—uninsured vehicle status aligns with denial; no UM coverage. | Yes; the bucket truck qualifies as an uninsured motor vehicle under the policy. |
| Does the loss arise from the maintenance of the uninsured vehicle, triggering UM coverage? | Cornelius—there is a causal link between negligent maintenance and the accident; coverage should apply. | National Casualty—injury must arise from normal vehicle use or maintenance not tied to transport. | Yes; there is a causal connection between negligent maintenance and the accident, so UM coverage applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Canal Ins. Co. v. Abraham, 1999 SD 90, 598 N.W.2d 512 (S.D. 1999) (purpose of UM statutes to provide protection equivalent to minimum liability coverage; supports broad interpretation of coverage)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Vostad, 520 N.W.2d 273 (S.D. 1994) (vehicle used as premises is excluded from UM; distinguishable on policy language here)
- Davis v. Farm & City Ins. Co., 2001 SD 71, 629 N.W.2d 586 (S.D. 2001) (uninsured motorist coverage requires causal connection between use of uninsured vehicle and harm; supports broad interpretation of maintenance-triggered coverage)
- Brandenburg v. Allstate Ins. Co., 23 F.3d 1438 (8th Cir. 1994) (uninsured motorist benefits may extend to single-vehicle accidents when policy definitions permit)