On July 12, 2008 a ten-year-old girl was driving her parents golf cart with some friends in a nearby cul-de-sac in the Parish of East Baton Rouge in the State of Louisiana. While on her excursion, she encountered a neighbor boy who was six-years-old. Because the boy was so close to the front the car, she believed he was playing a reverse game of chicken and followed him closely. Unfortunately, she hit him with the golf cart and he fell. She believed he was only mildly injured, but she drove the golf cart home immediately to report the accident to her parents.
At first, her parents thought nothing of it, assuming that, other than a few scrapes and bruises, the boy was fine. However, after a few hours, they thought they would walk over to their neighbors’ house to be sure everything was okay and speak to the boy’s parents. When they arrived at the neighbor’s house, they found several neighbors outside and the boy was in his driveway, looking very ill. His parents explained that since the accident, the boy would not stop vomiting, and an ambulance was on the way to pick him up. The boy ended up having problems with his kidneys and subsequently had to have half of one removed.
The boy’s parents filed suit against the girl’s parents for the injuries to their son; they specifically asked for help with payment of the medical bills. The girl’s parents, believing that their insurance company would help with this this claim, entered the insurance company as a third party in the lawsuit. When an insurance company is entered as a third party, it is usually because the person who may be liable is expecting them to help pay for any of the damages should the case turn out to involve payment to the person who was injured.
However, partly because of the uniqueness of the injuries, the insurance company fought to be removed from the case, arguing that the insurance policy did not cover such an injury. The girl’s family had both vehicle insurance and homeowners insurance from this particular company. The court looked through the insurance policy and determined that they were right; this type of accident was not covered under the policy.
The reason that the court came to this conclusion was based on a strict reading of the insurance policy. Insurance policies are contracts and the court can only look outside the contract for meaning if the contract is unclear. If, for example, the contract had a confusing clause, then the court could look to other similar contracts or situations to help determine how to clarify the clause. If it is unclear, then the contract’s meaning is decided in favor of the party that did not write it. However, that is not the case here. The court decided that the contract was so plain and clear that they did not need to look beyond the wording in the contract to determine what it did and did not cover.
In addition to listing what this policy covered, it also listed a variety of exceptions. The court decided that this situation did not fit into any of the exceptions that would have established coverage. As a preliminary measure, the court points out that because a minor who had permission from the owners drove the cart, then it fits into the exceptions clause. The court then walked through all of the exceptions to see if it could find a fit. First, the policy would cover a golf cart that was being driven for the purpose of playing golf. However, the girl was not going to the golf course, she was simply using the cart around her neighborhood, so the policy would not cover that action. Second, the cart would be covered if it was being used to service the residence, such as hauling things to make improvements on the house. Again, that is not what the girl was doing in this situation. Third, it would have been covered if she was transporting people with disabilities, but she was not; she was only transporting her friends who had no real need for the transportation.
Lastly, the insurance would cover injuries that occur at an insured location. Typically, for homeowner’s insurance, the obvious insured location would be the house, but using this clause, it would also cover the yard and some surrounding areas. The court ruled, however, that that cul-de-sac was not an insured area. It argues that if the cul-de-sac, a public location, is an insured area because it is near the girl’s home, then that would extend coverage to a number of locations that likely fall beyond the intentions of the parties, such as public roads to and from insured locations.
The court also considers whether their vehicle insurance would have covered the golf cart. However, it could not cover either because the contract states that it does not cover vehicles that either have fewer than three wheels or are designed for off-road use. The golf cart is not designed to be used on public road, it is designed for use on a golf course, and it has four wheels, so it falls neatly into the exceptions for coverage under the vehicle insurance plan.
The strict view that the court took on this insurance policy led the insurance company to be able to sneak out of the case and leave the families to fight it out amongst themselves. The result is that both parties suffer; one loses money and the other gains money that may take years to obtain (instead of in a lump sum, as the insurance company would have been likely to provide). This case teaches us two lessons: (1) Read your insurance policy carefully and (2) obtain a competent lawyer like those at the Berniard Law Firm to help you with your case.
Call 1-866-574-8005 and we will be happy to discuss your legal needs.