In November 2024, a US West Virginia appeal court found that a motorist who shot and killed another motorist in a road rage incident was not entitled to an indemnity under his motor policy because the shooting of the gun was “wholly unrelated to the inherent nature of the vehicle”.
A trucking company owner, driving and horse and trailer, cut off another motorist who became enraged. The other motorist blocked the truck/trailer with his car, exited his vehicle and approached the insured who rolled down the window of the towing vehicle. The insured alleged that the other motorist made threatening comments and opened the door of the truck. The insured driver fired a pistol at the other motorist hitting him in the chest, resulting in his death. The insured was sued by the surviving spouse.
The motor section of the motor and general liability policy covered “all sums an insured legally must pay as damages because of bodily injury or property damage caused by an accident resulting from the ownership, maintenance or use of a covered vehicle”.
The court applied a previous Florida decision that a covered vehicle accident must arise out of the inherent nature of the vehicle, the accident must arise within the natural territorial limits of the vehicle and the actual use, loading or unloading must not have been terminated. Finally, the automobile must not merely contribute to cause the condition which produces the injury, but must itself produce the injury. At the time of the event, the vehicles were parked and, according to the judgment, the use of their respective vehicles was thus terminated. At most the insured’s driving may have contributed to the hostilities between the parties that created the circumstances for the deadly confrontation. However, the driving was not what produced the injury. It did not matter whether the killing was intentional or negligent.
In South Africa, a motor policy covers loss resulting from the possession, use or ownership of motor vehicles and the same result would follow, not necessarily for all the reasons given by the US court. The outcome would seem to be rather obvious under South African law.