04-0943 Austin-White v. Young

Listen to this article

“We conclude Young was in the process of using his pickup truck when Austin-White was injured. ‘As used in a liability insurance policy, the words ‘arising out of’ are very broad, general, and comprehensive. They … require only that there be some causal relationship between the injury and the risk for which coverage is provided.’ …

“We are satisfied that this case is controlled by precedent applying the ‘complete operation’ doctrine. In adopting this doctrine, the supreme court noted that the doctrine ‘contemplates that the loading commences when the items of cargo leave their original location on the way toward the vehicle.…’ …

“It is undisputed that Young was in the process of moving the tailgate onto the flatbed of the pickup truck. To do this, he needed to transport the gate from its original location. That he used the Bobcat is irrelevant-it was simply a necessary, preparatory act preceding his setting the gate on the flatbed. The pickup truck is a covered vehicle under the AMI policy, Austin-White’s injuries occurred while Young was in the ‘complete operation’ of loading the pickup, and the loading is a covered use. Therefore, Austin-White is covered under the uninsured motorist provisions of the policy.”

However, we agree with the trial court that plaintiff is not covered for purposes of the medical payments provision of the policy because he was in or on the truck and was not struck by the truck.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist III, Polk County, Galewyrick, J., Hoover, P.J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Ardell W. Skow, Baldwin; Martha H. Heidt, Baldwin

For Respondent: Thomas D. McCormick, Hudson