Professional Liability

In this tragic case, James Hunt was stopped at a red light while driving a vehicle owned by his employer when he was accidentally shot and killed by the operator of another vehicle stopped at the red light, heading in the same direction. The accidental shooter was attempting to unload a firearm which he kept in his glove compartment.

The employer-owned van that Hunt was operating at the time of his killing was insured by Allmerica Financial Benefit Insurance Company with non-stacked underinsured motorist limits of $1,000,000.00. Hunt’s family reached a settlement with the shooter’s auto insurer and demanded the UIM policy limits from Allmerica. Allmerica disclaimed the Hunts’ UIM claim and filed a declaratory action.

The Eastern District was then tasked with Allmercia’s motion for judgment on the pleadings wherein it argued that Hunt’s death did not result from the ownership, maintenance, or use of an underinsured motor vehicle, which is required for Allmerica to pay UIM benefits, per their policy. Allmerica argued that “result from” is a proximate causation standard for the payments of UIM benefits. In response, the Hunts argued that Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law codified a “but for” causal standard for the payment of UIM benefits where it requires UIM coverage “provide protection for persons who suffer injury arising out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle . . .”

Determining that the Allmerica policy language directly contradicts the MVFRL mandate, the Eastern District applied a “but for” standard to determine if UIM coverage applied. After an extensive review of precedent, the Eastern District determined that, since the shooter’s vehicle was being used to transport himself and the firearm to and from work, and since the discharge of his weapon was the result of negligent and unintentional conduct, the shooter’s use of his vehicle was the “but for” cause of the death of Hunt.