(Article from Insurance Law Alert, November 2019)
For more information, please visit the Insurance Law Alert Resource Center.
A Pennsylvania federal district court ruled that an automobile accident involving two collisions within a second of each other gave rise to two separate occurrences for insurance coverage purposes. Busby v. Steadfast Ins. Co., 2019 WL 5682758 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2019).
A Lyft car carrying passenger Busby rear-ended a car when traffic came to a stop. Approximately one second later, the Lyft car was hit by the car behind it. Busby sued both drivers and settled for an undisclosed amount. Steadfast, Lyft’s insurer, paid Busby the $1 million per-accident policy limit. In addition, USAA, Busby’s automobile insurer paid her $300,000, the per-accident limit. Thereafter, Busby sued both insurers seeking an additional $1 million from Steadfast and $200,000 from USAA for what she deemed “the second accident”—i.e., the rear-ending of the Lyft car. The insurers denied coverage, arguing that the accident involved only one covered accident.
The court disagreed and granted Busby’s summary judgment motion. Applying Pennsylvania’s cause-oriented approach, the court concluded that there was not one proximate, uninterrupted cause of Busby’s injuries. Although the two crashes took place only one second apart, the court explained that “it was enough time for Busby to be thrown forward as a result of the Lyft crash and then again as a result of the [second] crash.” The court further reasoned that the first collision was not the proximate cause of the second collision, which might still have occurred even if the first had not taken place. Notably, the court distinguished multi-car collisions initiated by the last car in line, stating: “[w]hat happened here is not like a chain reaction motor vehicle crash where the last car hits the car in front of it which then hits the car in front of it as a result of the first impact. . . . [S]uch a ‘domino’ type of collision . . . would be one accident under the relevant policies.”
Courts in other jurisdictions have reached conflicting decisions as to whether and under what circumstances multi-car collisions constitute a single occurrence or multiple occurrences. See January 2019 Alert; June 2018 Alert; March 2016 Alert; October 2015 Alert.