In State Farm v. Dooner, ____A.3d ____, 2018 PA Super 146 (June 4, 2018), the Superior Court held that the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of State Farm, when Dooner, a passenger in her friend’s vehicle, grabbed the steering wheel and caused the vehicle to become involved in an accident. The Court concluded that Dooner did not have possession of the vehicle, but rather, interfered with the operation of the vehicle.
At the time of the accident, Ms. Dooner was a passenger in Jean Fonte’s vehicle. Ms. Fonte was driving Ms. Dooner home after Dooner was arrested for DUI. While driving, an altercation between the women started and Dooner grabbed the steering wheel and jerked it. This caused the vehicle to swerve into oncoming traffic and strike an oncoming police cruiser. Fonte and the officer were both injured and filed suit against Dooner for the accident.
Dooner’s personal automobile insurer, State Farm, filed for declaratory judgment, asserting it had no duty to defend, indemnify, or otherwise provide liability coverage to Dooner under Dooner’s State Farm policy. The trial court granted State Farm’s Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that State Farm owed no duty of coverage.
Mr. Fonte appealed, arguing that Dooner’s policy provided coverage for a “non-owned” vehicle if the vehicle was in “lawful possession of you or any resident relative.” Fonte asserted that the policy did not define the terms “possession” or “lawful,” and therefore, the policy was ambiguous and had to be construed in Fonte’s favor.
The Superior Court disagreed and affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Court found that State Farm was not required to provide coverage for the accident when, under the applicable provisions of the State Farm policy, the policy provided coverage only when the insured was in possession of the vehicle. The Court examined the policy, applied the policy definition of “insured” to the facts and found that Dooner’s “use” of a “non-own car,” was the only possible scenario qualifying for coverage under the policy. Therefore, the vehicle that Fonte was driving had to qualify as a “non-own car” and Dooner had to be “in lawful possession” of it for coverage to exist.
The Court agreed with the State Farm’s reliance on a dictionary definition of “possession” to find that Ms. Fonte, not Ms. Dooner, was in control of the vehicle at the time of the accident. Ms. Fonte was in the driver’s seat and never relinquished the gas or brake pedals. The Court found that Ms. Dooner’s action of grabbing the steering wheel did not constitute possession of the car, but rather interfered with Ms. Fonte’s operation of the vehicle. The Court further explained that even if Ms. Dooner was found in possession of the car at the time of the accident, the possession would not have been lawful. The Court concluded that State Farm did not owe coverage to Ms. Dooner and found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s findings granting State Farm’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Please contact David R. Friedman with any questions.
