(Article from Insurance Law Alert, January 2019)
For more information, please visit the Insurance Law Alert Resource Center.
The Fifth Circuit ruled that multiple car collisions constitute a single accident and that an insurer was thus obligated to pay only a single policy limit. Evanston Ins. Co. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co., 2018 WL 6037507 (5th Cir. Nov. 19, 2018).
Over a ten-minute period, a Mack truck collided with several cars and objects, resulting in severe injuries to and the death of numerous individuals. The parties settled all claims and the sole remaining issue before the court was whether a series of three collisions constituted a single accident or multiple accidents for the purpose of determining the policy limits available. The record established that the Mack truck hit a Honda Accord that was waiting in line at a toll plaza. After hitting the Accord, the truck continued traveling through the toll lane for approximately 66 feet before striking a Dodge Charger. The truck pushed the Charger until it crashed into a retaining wall, striking the toll booth in the process. The truck driver did not apply the brakes at any time during the incident.
Applying Texas law, the district court ruled that there were two separate accidents: the collision with the Accord and the collision with the Charger. The district court applied a cause-oriented approach, but held that under Texas law, an “overarching cause” of injuries (i.e., the Mack truck driver’s negligence) can never constitute a single occurrence. Thus, the district court looked to the “immediate causes” of the injuries, and reasoned that the each incident giving rise to liability was caused by a separate collision.
The Fifth Circuit reversed, finding only one accident. The Fifth Circuit clarified that an “overarching cause” of injuries does not give rise to a single occurrence when it is not the “proximate, uninterrupted, and continuing cause of all the injuries.” For example, Texas courts have rejected single-accident arguments based on an “overarching cause” of negligent supervision in sexual abuse cases on the basis that “an overarching cause should be ignored where an intervening cause—like an intentional tort—breaks the chain of causation.” Here, however, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the casual chain was not broken by any intervening acts (such as a pause in conduct or an indication that the truck driver had applied breaks or gained control of his vehicle) and that the truck driver’s ongoing negligence was the single, proximate and uninterrupted cause of all collisions.