Butzberger v. Foster

151 Wash. 2d 396 (2004) · Supreme Court of Washington · May 6, 2004

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court held that a rescuer killed while attempting to assist an occupant of an overturned vehicle was entitled to underinsured motorist coverage under both the policy covering the overturned vehicle and the policy covering the rescuer’s vehicle. The court replaced the four-factor use analysis previously applied in Washington with a three-factor test requiring causal connection, reasonably close geographic proximity, and engagement in a transaction essential to the vehicle’s use. The court also awarded attorney fees and remanded for determination of whether a valid UIM waiver limited coverage under one policy.

Holdings

  1. Whether a person was using a vehicle for purposes of UIM coverage is determined from the facts of each case, and the person must satisfy three factors: a causal relation or connection between the injury and the vehicle's use, reasonably close geographic proximity to the vehicle, and engagement in a transaction essential to the vehicle's use.
  2. Butzberger was using Foster's pickup truck for purposes of UIM coverage because he was attempting to rescue Foster from the overturned vehicle.
  3. Butzberger was using the vehicle he had been driving for purposes of UIM coverage because his rescue effort was an interruption in his ongoing travel to work and was a transaction essential to the use of his vehicle.
  4. The estate was entitled to reasonable attorney fees against both Allstate and T.H.E. for work at trial and on appeal.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Butzberger was using Foster's vehicle for purposes of UIM coverage while attempting to rescue Foster.
  2. Whether Butzberger was using the vehicle he had been driving for purposes of UIM coverage while temporarily interrupting his travel to rescue Foster.
  3. Whether the Rau four-factor test for determining vehicle use should be reduced by eliminating the vehicle-oriented factor.
  4. Whether the Court of Appeals should decide whether T.H.E. established a valid UIM waiver limiting coverage to $50,000.
  5. Whether the estate was entitled to attorney fees under Washington law.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (25)

  • Jones v. Allstate Ins. Co., 146 Wn.2d 291, 45 P.3d 1068 (2002)(followed)
  • Clements v. Travelers Indem. Co., 121 Wn.2d 243, 850 P.2d 1298 (1993)(followed)
  • Roller v. Stonewall Ins. Co., 115 Wn.2d 679, 801 P.2d 207 (1990)(partially overruled)
  • Overton v. Consol. Ins. Co., 145 Wn.2d 417, 38 P.3d 322 (2002)(followed)
  • Sears v. Grange Ins. Ass'n, 111 Wn.2d 636, 762 P.2d 1141 (1988)(partially overruled)
  • Touchette v. N.W. Mut. Ins. Co., 80 Wn.2d 327, 494 P.2d 479 (1972)(followed)
  • Rau v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 21 Wn. App. 326, 585 P.2d 157 (1978)(partially overruled)
  • Federated Am. Ins. Co. v. Raynes, 88 Wn.2d 439, 563 P.2d 815 (1977)(followed)
  • Cherry v. Truck Insurance Exchange, 77 Wn. App. 557, 892 P.2d 768 (1995)(followed)
  • Federated Mutual Implement & Hardware Insurance Co. v. Gupton, 241 F. Supp. 509 (E.D.S.C. 1965), aff'd, 357 F.2d 155 (4th Cir. 1966)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 25.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Washington Supreme Court