87ElCamino
01-13-2004, 02:59 PM
This an actual story out of todays. Providence Journal (http://www.projo.com) newspaper.
Court applies brakes in suit over junk car
When a car fell on him in a salvage yard, a West Warwick man filed a claim under the uninsured motorist provision of his auto insurance policy.
01:00 AM EST on Tuesday, January 13, 2004
BY EDWARD FITZPATRICK
Journal Staff Writer
PROVIDENCE -- The Rhode Island Supreme Court yesterday rejected an appeal from a man who tried to collect uninsured motorist payments after a junked car fell on him in a West Warwick salvage yard.
"Can one man's trash be another man's uninsured motor vehicle?" the high court asked in an unsigned opinion. "We think not."
Kenneth Gonsalves, of West Warwick, went to Ruggieri's Auto Parts in December 2000, searching for a used radiator. He found an old Plymouth Horizon perched atop two other junked cars. As he stood on one car's trunk, reaching up to peer under the Horizon's hood, the Horizon fell on him, pinning his ankles against the other car and nearly severing his legs.
Gonsalves filed a claim with Casco Indemnity Co. to collect under the uninsured motorist provision of his auto insurance policy. There was no debate that Ruggieri's Auto Parts owned the Horizon and was uninsured.
But Casco, an insurance company based in Maine, argued that it did not have to pay Gonsalves because the accident did not stem from the "ownership, maintenance or use of an uninsured motor vehicle," as the policy required. Casco brought the matter to Superior Court, where Judge Mark A. Pfeiffer ruled in the company's favor, and Gonsalves appealed.
So the Supreme Court faced the question of whether the Horizon was a motor vehicle -- within the meaning of the insurance contract -- when it landed on Gonsalves. The policy described a motor vehicle as "a land motor vehicle" that is "designed for use mainly on public roads."
"There is no question," the Supreme Court stated, "that at some point the Horizon was a motor vehicle within the above definition because it was both designed for and, presumably, used 'mainly on public roads.' "
"The question, then, is whether the Horizon was still a motor vehicle within the meaning of the insurance contract on the date of the accident," the court stated. "We hold that when Gonsalves came to Ruggieri's, the Horizon was no longer a 'motor vehicle.' "
The court concluded that no ordinary person who read the insurance policy would think that it covered injuries received "from an automobile that has been sold for parts and scrap metal, is missing several important parts and is found stationed on top of two other similar automobile hulks."
Gonsalves argued that the Horizon was a motor vehicle because it could have been restored. At a deposition, salvage yard owner Louis Ruggieri was asked if the car would start if it was provided with a working battery, a tire and a door, and Ruggieri said that it was possible.
The Supreme Court agreed that "the Horizon could have become a motor vehicle again at some point."
"It is clear, however, that at the time of the accident the Horizon was used for spare parts, not for transportation 'mainly on public roads,' " the court stated. "The Horizon could not have been operated legally on a public highway, and Gonsalves was reaching toward the Horizon because he wanted to 'use' the car as a cadaver for a part he needed for another vehicle. Accordingly, the motion justice did not err in finding that the Horizon was not a motor vehicle, but, rather, 'junk.' "
Gonsalves argued that there only needed to be "some nexus between the motor vehicle and the injury," citing three recent Rhode Island Supreme Court cases.
In one decision, the court ruled that a drive-by shooting victim was covered by his policy's uninsured motorist provision because the car used in the shooting was uninsured. In another case, the court upheld damages awarded to a man who fell off a bridge as he was helping an underinsured driver whose car was stuck. And in the third case, the court ruled that the family of a victim shot and killed by an uninsured driver, after getting into a minor accident, was entitled to recover under the victim's uninsured motorist provision.
But the Supreme Court said those cases hinged on the "use" of the uninsured cars -- not on whether the machines involved were motor vehicles.
"Gonsalves' argument that there need be only 'some nexus' between the injuries and the motor vehicle does not apply to this case," the court concluded, "because we already have determined that no motor vehicle was involved in the accident."
Gonsalves' lawyer, Ralph R. Liguori, said he was disappointed by the court's decision. He said the car crushed both of Gonsalves' legs; Gonsalves is able to walk now -- but only with difficulty and discomfort. "This was his only avenue of recovery," Liguori said. "I thought that might be compelling to the Supreme Court, but obviously it was not.
"I thought that our argument was compelling in that the policy language wasn't worded in such a way that this type of situation was automatically precluded," Liguori said. "But they found that the thing that struck Mr. Gonsalves was not a motor vehicle. It looks like a motor vehicle. It's not a toaster. So what is it?"
Gonsalves, 66, had a similar reaction when reached last night. If it wasn't a motor vehicle, he said, "what was it -- a bicycle?"
"What can I say?" Gonsalves said. "The judges made their decision."
Casco's lawyer, Mark T. Reynolds, said, "Obviously, we are happy about the result. What happened to Mr. Gonsalves was unfortunate, but as the Supreme Court found, it's not the type of circumstance covered by someone's personal automobile insurance policy."
Reynolds said he had never seen a case quite like this one before. "During arguments, the Supreme Court seemed surprised by the unusual factual circumstances," he said. "Sometimes, actual events are better than fiction."
Court applies brakes in suit over junk car
When a car fell on him in a salvage yard, a West Warwick man filed a claim under the uninsured motorist provision of his auto insurance policy.
01:00 AM EST on Tuesday, January 13, 2004
BY EDWARD FITZPATRICK
Journal Staff Writer
PROVIDENCE -- The Rhode Island Supreme Court yesterday rejected an appeal from a man who tried to collect uninsured motorist payments after a junked car fell on him in a West Warwick salvage yard.
"Can one man's trash be another man's uninsured motor vehicle?" the high court asked in an unsigned opinion. "We think not."
Kenneth Gonsalves, of West Warwick, went to Ruggieri's Auto Parts in December 2000, searching for a used radiator. He found an old Plymouth Horizon perched atop two other junked cars. As he stood on one car's trunk, reaching up to peer under the Horizon's hood, the Horizon fell on him, pinning his ankles against the other car and nearly severing his legs.
Gonsalves filed a claim with Casco Indemnity Co. to collect under the uninsured motorist provision of his auto insurance policy. There was no debate that Ruggieri's Auto Parts owned the Horizon and was uninsured.
But Casco, an insurance company based in Maine, argued that it did not have to pay Gonsalves because the accident did not stem from the "ownership, maintenance or use of an uninsured motor vehicle," as the policy required. Casco brought the matter to Superior Court, where Judge Mark A. Pfeiffer ruled in the company's favor, and Gonsalves appealed.
So the Supreme Court faced the question of whether the Horizon was a motor vehicle -- within the meaning of the insurance contract -- when it landed on Gonsalves. The policy described a motor vehicle as "a land motor vehicle" that is "designed for use mainly on public roads."
"There is no question," the Supreme Court stated, "that at some point the Horizon was a motor vehicle within the above definition because it was both designed for and, presumably, used 'mainly on public roads.' "
"The question, then, is whether the Horizon was still a motor vehicle within the meaning of the insurance contract on the date of the accident," the court stated. "We hold that when Gonsalves came to Ruggieri's, the Horizon was no longer a 'motor vehicle.' "
The court concluded that no ordinary person who read the insurance policy would think that it covered injuries received "from an automobile that has been sold for parts and scrap metal, is missing several important parts and is found stationed on top of two other similar automobile hulks."
Gonsalves argued that the Horizon was a motor vehicle because it could have been restored. At a deposition, salvage yard owner Louis Ruggieri was asked if the car would start if it was provided with a working battery, a tire and a door, and Ruggieri said that it was possible.
The Supreme Court agreed that "the Horizon could have become a motor vehicle again at some point."
"It is clear, however, that at the time of the accident the Horizon was used for spare parts, not for transportation 'mainly on public roads,' " the court stated. "The Horizon could not have been operated legally on a public highway, and Gonsalves was reaching toward the Horizon because he wanted to 'use' the car as a cadaver for a part he needed for another vehicle. Accordingly, the motion justice did not err in finding that the Horizon was not a motor vehicle, but, rather, 'junk.' "
Gonsalves argued that there only needed to be "some nexus between the motor vehicle and the injury," citing three recent Rhode Island Supreme Court cases.
In one decision, the court ruled that a drive-by shooting victim was covered by his policy's uninsured motorist provision because the car used in the shooting was uninsured. In another case, the court upheld damages awarded to a man who fell off a bridge as he was helping an underinsured driver whose car was stuck. And in the third case, the court ruled that the family of a victim shot and killed by an uninsured driver, after getting into a minor accident, was entitled to recover under the victim's uninsured motorist provision.
But the Supreme Court said those cases hinged on the "use" of the uninsured cars -- not on whether the machines involved were motor vehicles.
"Gonsalves' argument that there need be only 'some nexus' between the injuries and the motor vehicle does not apply to this case," the court concluded, "because we already have determined that no motor vehicle was involved in the accident."
Gonsalves' lawyer, Ralph R. Liguori, said he was disappointed by the court's decision. He said the car crushed both of Gonsalves' legs; Gonsalves is able to walk now -- but only with difficulty and discomfort. "This was his only avenue of recovery," Liguori said. "I thought that might be compelling to the Supreme Court, but obviously it was not.
"I thought that our argument was compelling in that the policy language wasn't worded in such a way that this type of situation was automatically precluded," Liguori said. "But they found that the thing that struck Mr. Gonsalves was not a motor vehicle. It looks like a motor vehicle. It's not a toaster. So what is it?"
Gonsalves, 66, had a similar reaction when reached last night. If it wasn't a motor vehicle, he said, "what was it -- a bicycle?"
"What can I say?" Gonsalves said. "The judges made their decision."
Casco's lawyer, Mark T. Reynolds, said, "Obviously, we are happy about the result. What happened to Mr. Gonsalves was unfortunate, but as the Supreme Court found, it's not the type of circumstance covered by someone's personal automobile insurance policy."
Reynolds said he had never seen a case quite like this one before. "During arguments, the Supreme Court seemed surprised by the unusual factual circumstances," he said. "Sometimes, actual events are better than fiction."