Hunt v. AAA Nev. Ins. Co., 369 F. Supp. 3d 1113

On March 3, 2013, plaintiff John David Hunt and non-party Thomas Harper had a road-rage encounter in Reno; after stopping, Harper punched Hunt and fled; Hunt fractured his ankle when restraining Harper and later developed a serious MRSA infection requiring additional surgeries.
Hunt incurred at least $676,000 in medical expenses and submitted a claim to his AAA/CSAA auto policy seeking the $250,000 UIM per-person limit; CSAA denied coverage, asserting the injuries were not covered under the policy.
The policy required bodily injury to be (1) "caused by an accident" and (2) "arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use" of an underinsured motor vehicle; the policy defined "accident" to exclude intentional acts.
Hunt sued CSAA for breach of contract, bad faith, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and tortious interference; parties stipulated material facts and filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
The sole legal question was contract interpretation: whether Hunt’s injuries were (a) caused by an "accident" under the policy and (b) arose out of the "use" of a motor vehicle.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the fight was an "accident" under the policy	Hunt: definition is from insured's perspective; he did not expect to be punched, so it was sudden/unexpected and thus an accident	CSAA: policy unambiguously excludes intentional acts regardless of actor; Harper's intentional battery is not covered	Court: Intentional battery is excluded; not an "accident" under the unambiguous policy
Whether CSAA effectively conceded the incident was an "accident"	Hunt: CSAA email amounted to concession that the event fits policy "accident" definition	CSAA: email merely stated it had not yet denied coverage at that time; no concession	Court: No concession; email was noncommittal
Whether injuries "arose out of" the "use" of the vehicle	Hunt: road-rage originated while driving, so injuries arose out of vehicle use	CSAA: injuries resulted from an intervening, off-vehicle intentional assault; mere travel to location is insufficient to show "use"	Court: Off-vehicle intentional act broke causal connection; injuries did not arise out of vehicle "use"
Whether CSAA properly denied coverage and is entitled to summary judgment on all claims	Hunt: entitled to UIM benefits; denial breached contract and supports related claims	CSAA: denial consistent with policy language; no coverage so no breach or derivative claims	Court: Granted CSAA summary judgment; denied Hunt summary judgment; judgment for CSAA on all claims

Fire Ins. Exchange v. Cornell, 120 Nev. 303, 90 P.3d 978 (Nev. 2004) (intentional acts are not "accidents" under standard insurance definitions)
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Cramer, 857 P.2d 751 (Nev. 1993) (insurance policy interpretation is a question of law; courts apply plain meaning to unambiguous provisions)
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Fernandez, 767 F.2d 1299 (9th Cir. 1985) (an intervening intentional act breaks causal connection between vehicle use and injury for coverage purposes)
Yandle v. Hardware Mut. Ins. Co., 314 F.2d 435 (9th Cir. 1963) ("use" of a vehicle means making use of or enjoying the vehicle)