|
|
Publications
Texas Federal District Court Holds Use of Vehicle Must Relate to Transportation Function for Commercial Auto Coverage
Insurance Law Update
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division
In Employers Mut. Cas. Co. v. Bonilla, ___F. Supp. 2d ___, 2009 WL 875060 (N.D. Tex. April 1, 2009), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, held that no coverage existed under a commercial auto liability policy for injuries suffered as a result of activity related to Juan Miguel Bonilla’s and his employee’s cleaning of the covered vehicle because cleaning the vehicle does not constitute “use” or “maintenance” of the vehicle. The commercial auto policy provided coverage for “all sums an insured legally must pay . . . caused by an accident and resulting from the ownership, maintenance, or use of a covered auto.”
The court in Bonilla relied on the Texas Supreme Court decision in Mid-Century Ins. Co. of Texas v. Lindsey, 997 S.W.2d 153 (Tex. 1999), to hold that cleaning the vehicle is not a use of the vehicle as a vehicle because cleaning does not relate to the vehicle’s purpose of providing transportation. The court similarly held that cleaning the vehicle is not “maintenance” of the vehicle under the policy’s coverage because cleaning is not necessary to enable the transportation purpose of the vehicle. Bonilla also sought coverage under a commercial general liability policy (CGL) and an umbrella liability policy. The court, however, held that there was no coverage under the CGL policy because Bonilla was not a named insured on that policy, and no coverage under the umbrella policy for the same reasons there was no coverage under the commercial auto liability policy.
|
Related People
Related Offices
Related Practices
|