ESTATE OF RICHERSON EX REL. RICHERSON v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 264 P.3d 1087

Estate sought medical payments under Cincinnati's motor vehicle policy for injuries to Terry Richerson; Cincinnati denied the claim.
Incident occurred November 2, 2005, when Richerson, while working on a concrete project, was struck by a concrete truck and transported several feet after being caught in a driveshaft, later dying from his injuries.
Policy language provides medical payments for an insured sustaining bodily injury caused by an accident; insured includes anyone for injuries while occupying a covered auto; occupying is defined as in, upon, getting in, on, out or off.
Estate argued Richerson was 'upon' the truck and thus occupied the vehicle, meeting the policy's occupancy requirement.
District Court, applying the reasonable connection test, granted Cincinnati’s summary judgment, concluding Richerson was not occupying the truck as defined.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Richerson was 'occupying' the insured auto under the policy.	Estate argues Richerson was 'upon' the truck due to being caught in and transported.	Cincinnati contends Richerson had no contact or activity with the truck and was not occupying it.	No; Richerson was not occupying the vehicle under the policy.

Nelson v. Iowa Mut. Ins. Co., 515 P.2d 362 (Mont. 1973) (reasonableness of connection to operation of vehicle to determine occupancy)
Sayers v. Safeco Ins. Co., 628 P.2d 659 (Mont. 1981) (occupancy broader than mere physical contact; reasonable connection test applied)
Aucoin v. Lafayette Ins. Co., 771 So.2d 95 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2000) (discussion of physical contact versus reasonable connection in occupancy)
Hastings v. Int'l Serv. Ins. Co., 490 So.2d 656 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1986) (occupancy considerations in similar occupancy analyses)
Westerfield v. LaFleur, 493 So.2d 600 (La. 1986) (occupancy determinations where claimant not in physical contact)