Patel v. LM General Insurance Company
4:17-cv-01639
| E.D. Mo. | May 2, 2018Background
- On Jan. 11, 2016, Maulik Patel was fatally shot while stopped in his 2011 Hyundai in St. Louis; shooters were in an unidentified vehicle that fled (a hit‑and‑run with no physical contact).
- LM General issued an auto policy (effective Apr. 1, 2016–Apr. 1, 2017) covering the Hyundai with uninsured motorist (UM) limits of $250,000 per person / $500,000 per accident.
- The policy's UM endorsement covers compensatory damages an "insured" may recover from the owner/operator of an "uninsured motor vehicle" arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of that vehicle.
- The policy definition of (under)uninsured motor vehicle includes hit‑and‑run vehicles whose operator/owner cannot be identified, but prior Missouri law requires a causal connection showing the injury "arose out of the use" of the vehicle (not merely that the vehicle was the situs of the injury).
- Plaintiff (Ripal Patel) sought UM benefits for Maulik’s death, arguing the unidentified vehicle that carried the shooters was an uninsured motor vehicle; LM General moved for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Maulik’s death "arose out of the use" of the unidentified vehicle for UM coverage | The shots came from the unidentified vehicle, so liability arises out of that vehicle's use | The vehicle was only the situs/transport for shooters; the shooting was not caused by the vehicle’s use | Court: No — as a matter of law the injury did not arise out of the vehicle’s use; summary judgment for LM General |
Key Cases Cited
- Walden v. Smith, 427 S.W.3d 269 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014) (defines "use" to require a causal nexus between vehicle employment and injury; situs alone insufficient)
- Ward v. Int'l Indem. Co., 897 S.W.2d 627 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995) (drive‑by shooting where vehicle was merely locus does not arise out of vehicle "use")
- Lemmons v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 878 S.W.2d 853 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994) (interpreting "use" to require instrumentality connection)
- Steelman v. Holford, 765 S.W.2d 372 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989) (same)
- Brown v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 838 S.W.2d 148 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992) (same)
- Cameron Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ward, 599 S.W.2d 13 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980) (same)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard)