“Auto” Exclusion Bars Coverage for Insured’s Negligence in Leaving Children in Parked Car

The California Court of Appeal has held that a liability policy’s “auto” exclusion barred coverage for an insured’s alleged negligence in leaving her foster children in a parked car where they died from heat exposure. ( Prince v. United National Insurance Company (2006) 2006 WL 2439858)

Facts

Leslie Smoot was the foster mother of Dakota Prince-Smith and Nate Prince-Smith. On a hot summer day, Smoot drove her car with the two foster children as passengers. Smoot then parked the car and left the children in the car for six hours. The children, who were strapped into their car seats, died from heat exposure.

The decedent children’s natural parents, Twila Prince and David Smith, filed a wrongful death action against Smoot. Smoot tendered defense of the wrongful death action to various liability insurers, including United National Insurance Company, which had issued a “Foster Parent Liability Policy.”  Although the United National policy apparently included Smoot as an insured, the policy contained an exclusion for bodily injury “arising out of the … use … of any … auto …owned … by … any insured.”  United National, citing the policy’s “auto” exclusion, refused to participate with the other insurers in defending and indemnifying Smoot in the wrongful death action.

The participating insurers eventually settled Smoot’s liability to Prince and Smith in the wrongful death action. As part of the settlement, the participating insurers assigned to Prince and Smith the participating insurers’ contribution rights against United National.

Armed with the assignment, Prince and Smith then sued United National. However, the trial court ruled that the United National policy’s “auto” exclusion applied, and that United National thus had no duty to participate in defending or indemnifying Smoot in the underlying wrongful death action. The trial court thus entered judgment in favor of United National.

Holding

The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that Smoot’s “use” of her vehicle was a “predominating cause of” and “substantial factor in” the deaths of her foster children. According to the court, Smoot’s negligence in leaving the children in the hot vehicle was not “independent from” her use of the vehicle. To the contrary, it was Smoot’s negligence in leaving the children in the vehicle that subjected the children to the extreme temperatures causing their deaths. Under such circumstances, the United National policy’s “auto” exclusion applied and United National had no duty to defend or indemnify Smoot in the underlying wrongful death action.

Comment

The appellate court reiterated that under California law, injuries can be found to arise out of the insured’s use of a vehicle even if the vehicle is parked. However, the court also emphasized that in this particular case, the insured’s vehicle was not merely “the situs” of the injury; rather, the vehicle itself was “the instrumentality” of the injury.