Roque v. Allstate Insurance Co.
318 P.3d 1
Colo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Road-rage incident; whether blocking a second car and then exiting to assault arises from use of an uninsured auto under UM coverage.
- Terlingen blocked plaintiffs in a McDonald’s parking lot, then exited his car and assaulted them with a golf club.
- Federal court declared Terlingen was not covered by homeowners/umbrella, and automobile policy coverage hinged on use; the ruling concerned third-party coverage, not UM.
- Plaintiffs sought UM coverage under Isenhour's Allstate policy after Terlingen was uninsured; trial court granted Allstate summary judgment.
- Colorado Supreme Court applies Kastner two-prong test to determine if injuries arise from the use of a vehicle; the court concludes the assault was not a use-related injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether use of a vehicle extended to blocking and facilitating assault under UM | Roque/Isenhour: injuries arise from vehicle use to trap them. | Allstate: Kastner two-prong test shows no nexus; blocking is not a use. | No; injuries did not arise from vehicle use. |
| Whether issue preclusion from federal decision bars UM claim | Federal decision is not identical; not binding on UM policy | Preclusion applies to prior identical issues | Not precluded; court may rule on the UM issue based on record. |
| How Kastner two-prong test governs whether injuries arise from use of a vehicle | Use of car to block exit and facilitate assault ties injuries to vehicle | First prong: vehicle use limited to transportation; second prong: no direct causal linkage | Terlingen's use did not satisfy both prongs; injuries not arising from use. |
Key Cases Cited
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Kastner, 77 P.3d 1256 (Colo. 2003) (two-prong test for 'use' and causation in UM/PIP coverage)
- Cole v. USAA, 68 P.3d 513 (Colo.App. 2002) (uninsured motorist coverage originated from use of vehicle; distinguish Kastner)
- McMillan v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 925 P.2d 785 (Colo. 1996) (statutory conflict regarding 'accident' definition; not controlling on 'use')
- Azar v. Employers Cas. Co., 178 Colo. 58 (Colo. 1972) ('arising out of the use' broadly construed; causal relation required)
- Kohl v. Union Ins. Co., 731 P.2d 134 (Colo.1986) (establishes broad understanding of 'arising out of' for insurance)