An auto exclusion in a homeowners insurance policy barred coverage where the insured’s negligent supervision of her granddaughter exposed the granddaughter to the risk of negligent operation of an auto. ( Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1199)
Facts
Jose and Sara Bautista had a one-year-old granddaughter, Valerie Bautista. Mrs. Bautista routinely allowed Valerie to greet Mr. Bautista at Mr. Bautista’s truck when he arrived home from work each evening. One evening, without Mrs. Bautista’s knowledge, Valerie exited the house and went to the driveway area by herself. When Mr. Bautista drove his truck into the driveway, his truck accidentally hit Valerie, killing her.
Valerie’s mother, Kenia Casaya, subsequently filed a wrongful death action against Mr. and Mrs. Bautista. In her complaint, Ms. Casaya alleged a cause of action for negligent operation of a motor vehicle against Mr. Bautista and a separate cause of action for negligent supervision against Mrs. Bautista.
At the time of the accident, Mr. Bautista was an insured on a Farmers Insurance Exchange auto policy with limits of $60,000 per occurrence. In addition, Mr. and Mrs. Bautista were both insureds on a Farmers homeowners policy with limits of $300,000 per occurrence. The homeowners policy contained an “auto” exclusion which barred coverage for bodily injury that “results from the ownership, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of … motor vehicles.”
Farmers provided Mr. and Mrs. Bautista with a defense against Ms. Casaya’s wrongful death action. Eventually, Ms. Casaya obtained a stipulated judgment against Mr. and Mrs. Bautista in the amount of $360,000, which equaled the limits of both the auto policy and the homeowners policy.
Farmers then filed a declaratory relief action against Mr. and Mrs. Bautista seeking a judicial determination that the auto exclusion in the homeowners policy precluded coverage under that policy. Farmers filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the auto exclusion applied because (a) Mr. Bautista’s use of the truck caused Valerie’s death and (b) Mrs. Bautista’s negligent supervision of Valerie did not constitute an independent, “concurrent cause” of Valerie’s death.
The trial court denied Farmers’ motion, finding that Mrs. Bautista was independently liable for Valerie’s death “because she placed Valerie in the ‘zone of danger,’ and therefore the homeowners policy provided coverage.” Farmers sought appellate review.
Holding
The Court of Appeal agreed that under the circumstances of this case, Farmers was entitled to summary judgment in its favor. According to the appellate court, the “concurrent causation” doctrine did not apply here, and thus the auto exclusion in the homeowners policy barred coverage for any liability Mrs. Bautista may have had for Valerie’s death.
The appellate court reasoned that under the concurrent causation doctrine, a liability policy’s “auto” exclusion does not bar coverage when an accident results from the concurrence of a non-auto-related cause and an auto-related cause. However, that rule only comes into play where the non-auto-related cause is “independent of” the auto-related cause. Here, Mrs. Bautista negligently exposed Valerie to the specific hazard created by the arrival of Mr. Bautista’s truck, and Mrs. Bautista’s negligence would not have rendered her liable independently of Mr. Bautista’s operation of his truck. Thus, the “auto” exclusion in the homeowners policy barred coverage for any liability Mrs. Bautista had in connection with Valerie’s death.
Comment
This appellate opinion is a fairly well-reasoned primer on the “concurrent causation” doctrine. It explains in detail the case law addressing situations where the doctrine will and will not negate an auto exclusion. The opinion also illustrates the fact specific nature of the inquiry that is necessary when analyzing concurrent causation issues. As a general rule, the auto exclusion will likely apply if the use or operation of an auto is the instrumentality that directly causes physical harm. On the other hand, the concurrent causation doctrine may negate application of an auto exclusion if the auto is merely incidental to the loss and not an active, direct instrumentality of the injury.