Gradillas V. Lincoln General Insurance Co.

(Court of Appeals Certifies Question Regarding "Use of an Automobile" to the California Supreme Court)

In Gradillas v. Lincoln General Ins. Co., 792 F.3d 1050 (July 6, 2015), the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals certified the following question to the California Supreme Court for its consideration:

When determining whether an injury arises out of the "use" of a vehicle for purposes of determining coverage under an automobile insurance policy and an insurance company's duty to defend, is the appropriate test whether the vehicle was a "predominating cause/substantial factor" or whether there was a "minimal causal connection" between the vehicle and the injury?

The Court of Appeals' certification of the above question regarding the use of an automobile arises out of the rape of the plaintiff by a bus driver who had parked his bus in a secluded area for purposes of committing the subject crime. The victim filed suit against the bus driver and the owner of the bus. Ultimately, the owner stipulated to the entry of a judgment in the amount of $2 million for the victim and $500,000 to the victim's husband. In return, the bus owner assigned all of his rights to the victim and her husband under the Lincoln General policy. Lincoln General had declined a duty to defend the claim by arguing that the rape of the plaintiff did not "arise out of the use" of the bus. Rather, the bus simply served as a situs of the wrongful conduct.

In requesting the Supreme Court to answer the certified question, the Court of Appeals stated as follows:

Explanation of Our Request

We seek the California Supreme Court's determination as to the proper test to apply in determining whether an injury arises out of the "use" of an automobile for purposes of determining the coverage of an automobile insurance policy and an insurer's duty to defend an insured. We ask for this assistance because the test to be applied in the context of this case will have a significant impact on these and similarly-situated parties, and there is insufficient guidance in the relevant statutes and case law to allow us to resolve this question.

Although a series of California Court of Appeal decisions, Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Parks, 170 Cal. App. 4th 992, 1012, 88 Cal. Rptr. 3d 730 (2009); R.A. Stuchbery & Others Syndicate 1096 v. Redland Ins. Co., 154 Cal. App. 4th 796, 802, 66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 80 (2007); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Grisham, 122 Cal. App. 4th 563, 566-67, 18 Cal. Rptr....