Appeals Court Agrees on PIP Denial for Injury After Truck Was Unloaded
An appeals court agrees coverage isn't allowed for a homeowner who injured his back trying to lift roofing sheets off a delivery driver.
July 25, 2019 at 02:35 PM
4 minute read
An appellate court in Texas affirmed a trial court decision denying personal injury protection benefits to an insured who claimed he was injured while helping move metal roofing sheets after they were unloaded from a delivery truck.
After a hailstorm damaged the roof of Alan Kiely's home in Wimberly, Texas, Kiely ordered metal roofing sheets from a home center to repair the roof. They arrived in the bed of a delivery truck driven by home center employee Brian David Reeves. The sheets were bound in three bundles by length.
To prepare for the delivery, Kiely placed wooden pallets in front of his home for the arrival of the sheets. Kiely, who used a cane following knee surgery, was outside when Reeves arrived. After learning Reeves did not have a forklift, Kiely asked him to position the truck so its lift “could be used to tilt the bed and unload the metal sheets onto the pallets.”
Reeves complied but allegedly misaligned the truck with the pallets. Disregarding Kiely's suggested method of unloading the sheets, Reeves began moving the first bundle by hand, trying to unload them by himself. As he was pulling the first bundle, it slid off the truck bed and pinned him between the ground and the sheets.
Reeves screamed for Kiely to help him. Kiely grabbed a corner of the bundle and tried to lift it. As he did so, Kiely said, he heard a “pop” and immediately felt a sharp pain in his lower back. Kiely then located a plank, pushed it under the corner of the bundle and lifted it high enough to free Reeves. Kiely fractured two vertebrae in his lower back and underwent several surgeries.
Kiely sought PIP benefits from his personal auto insurer, Texas Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co., for his medical expenses following the incident. Farm Bureau concluded Kiely had no right to those benefits, and Kiely sued.
Arguing Kiely's injuries had not resulted from a motor vehicle accident and he was not a “covered person” under the insurance policy, Farm Bureau filed its motion for summary judgment, and it was granted.
Kiely appealed, arguing his injuries stemmed from a motor vehicle accident and he was a “covered person” as defined by the insurance policy.
The appellate court affirmed. In its decision, the court ruled Kiely's injuries had not resulted from a motor vehicle accident as required under the Farm Bureau insurance policy for him to recover PIP benefits.
The appellate court explained that, other than the truck being used to transport the metal sheets to Kiely's home, it was not directly involved in the circumstances leading up to Kiely's injuries. The appellate court noted Kiely was not exiting or entering the vehicle when he sustained his injuries, and he was not injured while removing or trying to remove the sheets from the truck bed.
Instead, the appellate court ruled, the “injury-producing event” occurred as a direct result of Kiely's “intentional act of lifting the metal sheets” off Reeves.
The appellate court also was not persuaded by Kiely's contention that his injuries resulted from the “use of a motor vehicle” since Kiely was not injured while loading or unloading the truck but rather was injured when he lifted the already unloaded metal sheets off Reeves. The appellate court said it could not find Kiely was injured as a result of a motor vehicle accident.
Finally, it decided Kiely was neither occupying the vehicle when he sustained his injuries nor struck by the vehicle and, therefore, was not a “covered person” under the policy and not entitled to PIP benefits.
The case is Kiely v. Texas Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance, No. 06-19-00012-CV (Tex. Ct. App. July 22).
Steven A. Meyerowitz, a Harvard Law School graduate, is the founder and president of Meyerowitz Communications Inc., a law firm marketing communications consulting company. Meyerowitz is the Director of the Insurance Coverage Law Center and editor-in-chief of journals on insurance law, banking law, bankruptcy law, energy law, government contracting law, and privacy and cybersecurity law, among other subjects. Contact him at smeyerowitz@
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFilm Company Alleges Elon Musk, Tesla Used AI to Mimic 'Blade Runner' Scene
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Friday Newspaper
- 2Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 3Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 4NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 5A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250