Road-Rage Death Not Covered by Insurance

On November 19, 2024, in the case Canal Ins. Co. v. Sammons, a federal district court in West Virginia held that a commercial automobile insurance policy issued to a Florida company engaged in general freight transportation did not provide coverage for a road-rage shooting. This ruling is significant because it absolved a commercial auto insurance carrier of its duty to defend and/or indemnify a transportation company. The opinion also illustrates the importance of which state law controls the insurance coverage determination.

A.  Background

On October 7, 2021, James Armstrong was driving a tractor-trailer contracted to EMA Express ("EMA") in West Virginia. Armstrong cut off Eric Sammons which enraged Sammons. Sometime later, Sammons blocked Armstrong's truck with his car and exited his vehicle. Sammons approached the truck. Armstrong rolled down his window. Sammons threatened Armstrong and opened Armstrong's door. Armstrong shot and killed Sammons.

Kim Sammons, Eric's widow, sued Armstrong, Armstrong Trucking, and EMA for the negligent death of her husband. In response, Canal Insurance ("Canal"), the insurer of EMA, filed a suit in West Virginia federal district court to have the court decide whether the claims asserted by Sammons in her negligence action were covered under the Canal policy. Canal filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings and Mrs. Sammons filed a cross-motion seeking coverage. The Court ruled in favor of Canal and against Sammons.

B.  Discussion

The Canal policy covered:

"all sums an 'insured' legally must pay as damages because of  'bodily injury' or 'property damage' to which this insurance applies, caused by an 'accident' and resulting from the ownership, maintenance or use of a covered 'auto'.

Canal argued that under Florida law physical violence from road-rage does not result from ownership, maintenance, or use of a vehicle, as required by its policy. Canal further claimed Sammons' death did not arise out of the nature of the vehicle. Sammons directed the Court to two Florida appellate cases. Canal argued the two cases were distinguished and outdated. More recent Florida cases emphasize that the automobile must cause the injury for liability to attach to an insurer.

C.  Conclusion

The Court determined there was no coverage. It found that the vehicles were parked, and their use was terminated. The shooting of the gun by Armstrong was unrelated to the inherent nature of the vehicle. Armstrong's vehicle did not contribute to Sammons' injury, nor did it increase the likelihood of injury. Armstrong's driving did not produce the injury, as there was no contact between the vehicles. Finally, Sammons' death did not arise out of Armstrong's ownership, maintenance, or use of his vehicle, as required by the Canal policy. The Court granted Canal's motion and denied Sammon's motion.

D.  Why is this important?

• Injury/death resulting from road-rage may not be covered by your company's commercial automobile insurance carrier.
• A road-rage insurance coverage dispute could hinge on which state's law is applied to determine coverage.
• The Declaratory Judgment Act gives a federal district court discretion to declare parties' rights under an insurance policy.