39 F. Supp. 3d 1352
D.N.M.2014Background
- On Jan. 17, 2009, Melissa LaBarre brought her dog Jeb in her vehicle to the Bells’ residence to drop off a kitten and planned to transport Jeb to her parents’ after errands; Jeb remained inside the parked vehicle while LaBarre visited the home.
- Sophia Bell, a minor, approached the vehicle and attempted to hug Jeb (face-to-face due to the SUV height); Jeb growled and bit Sophia, causing serious facial injuries requiring reconstructive surgery.
- Defendants (Sophia’s parents) sought coverage under their uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) policy; insurer (Plaintiff) conceded LaBarre was underinsured but denied UM/UIM coverage, arguing the vehicle was only the mere situs of the injury.
- Defendants submitted expert testimony from veterinarian/animal-behavior specialist Dr. Jeff Nichol that confinement in the vehicle and territoriality increased the risk and facilitated the bite; the court admitted and considered this testimony.
- The court applied New Mexico law and the Britt (Klug) three-part test (causal nexus/active accessory; intervening independent act; normal use of vehicle) to decide whether the injury “arose out of” the use of the vehicle.
- The court found all three Britt factors satisfied (vehicle contributed to the bite, no intervening act severed causation, and transporting the dog was a normal use), and granted Defendants’ summary judgment: insurer must provide UM/UIM coverage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sophia’s injuries “arose out of” the use of the vehicle for UM/UIM coverage | The vehicle was merely the situs of the injury; no causal nexus to the vehicle | The bite was facilitated by the vehicle (confinement/territoriality), so it arose out of vehicle use | Held for Defendants — arose out of the use of the vehicle; coverage applies |
| Whether the vehicle was an "active accessory" in causing the bite | No; car did not actively contribute to the injury | Yes; confinement, territorial guarding of the vehicle, and face-to-face height contributed | Held for Defendants — vehicle was an active accessory |
| Whether an independent intervening act severed causation | Insurer argued no causal chain existed, so focus on severing irrelevant | Defendants: no intervening act; bite resulted from vehicle-related conditions | Held for Defendants — no independent act broke the causal chain |
| Whether transporting the dog was a "normal use" of the vehicle | Transporting the dog was not the sole purpose; thus no "use" tied to bite | Transporting the dog (frequent practice) is a normal vehicle use | Held for Defendants — transporting the dog was a normal use |
Key Cases Cited
- Britt v. Phoenix Indem. Ins. Co., 907 P.2d 994 (N.M. 1995) (adopts Klug/King three-factor test for whether injury "arises out of" vehicle use)
- Cont’l W. Ins. Co. v. King, 415 N.W.2d 876 (Minn. 1987) (established the multi-factor test applied in Britt)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Blystra, 86 F.3d 1007 (10th Cir. 1996) (vehicle can be an active accessory where it facilitates attack)
- Nat’l Indem. Co. v. Corbo, 248 So.2d 238 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1971) (dog bite during transport-related stop arose from vehicle use)
- Diehl v. Cumberland Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 686 A.2d 785 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1996) (bite facilitated by vehicle height supported causal nexus)