Kroeber v. GEICO Insurance Co., 184 Wash. 2d 925

On Feb. 12, 2012 Heidi Kroeber was shot outside a bar by Matthew Atkinson, who fired from an uninsured pickup truck and then drove away; facts dispute whether the truck was moving or stopped and whether he accelerated away.
Atkinson pleaded guilty to Drive-By Shooting but claimed he did not intend to hit anyone or know people were in the line of fire.
Kroeber sought underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits from her insurer GEICO; GEICO denied coverage arguing her injuries did not “arise out of” the use of the truck.
The federal district court found the shooting was an “accident,” that the policy requires the liability to “arise out of” ownership/maintenance/use of the underinsured vehicle, and that the vehicle was “in use,” then certified legal questions to the Washington Supreme Court.
The Washington Supreme Court framed the legal test: whether some causal connection exists between a condition, attachment, or aspect of vehicle use and the injury (versus the vehicle being the mere situs of the accident), and whether the shooter’s intent matters.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an injury caused by a bullet fired from a vehicle "arises out of" vehicle use for UIM coverage	Kroeber: use a "but-for" or similarly broad causation test — if the injury would not have occurred but for the vehicle/use, coverage exists	GEICO: the injury must show the vehicle itself or permanent attachments causally contributed; test sits between but-for and proximate causation	Held: An injury "arises out of" vehicle use if some causal connection exists between a condition of, attachment to, or aspect of the vehicle’s use and the injury; conversely no coverage where the vehicle is merely the situs of the accident
Whether the shooter’s subjective intent to harm is material to the "arising out of" analysis	Kroeber: intent is irrelevant to whether injury arose out of vehicle use once the incident is an "accident"	GEICO: argued intent bears on coverage analysis (but conceded the incident was an accident)	Held: Not material — because both parties agree the injury was an "accident," the shooter’s intent does not affect whether the injury arose out of vehicle use

Queen Anne Park Homeowners Ass’n v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 183 Wn.2d 485 (2015) (federal certified-question review is de novo)
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Centennial Ins. Co., 14 Wn. App. 541 (1975) ("arising out of" requires a degree of causality but not proximate cause)
Handley v. Oakley, 10 Wn.2d 396 (1941) (early articulation of causal link requirement)
Mut. of Enumclaw Ins. Co. v. Jerome, 122 Wn.2d 157 (1993) (vehicle cannot be merely the situs of the accident)
Transamerica Ins. Grp. v. United Pac. Ins. Co., 92 Wn.2d 21 (1979) (injury must involve some causal relationship to a condition or aspect of vehicle operation)
Detweiler v. J.C. Penney Cas. Ins. Co., 110 Wn.2d 99 (1988) (gunshot injuries can arise out of vehicle use where causally connected to vehicle events)
De Zafra v. Farmers Ins. Co., 270 Or. App. 77 (2015) ("arise out of" construed broadly for public protection under UIM-like statutes)
Lott v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, 273 F.2d 500 (5th Cir. 1960) (vehicle use may causally contribute to a shooting injury even when firearm was rested on vehicle roof)