Injuries sustained while using a truck in order to keep a rope taut in order to trim a tree did not constitute using the truck for transportation purposes, rendering the plaintiff ineligible for PIP benefits.
John Lovegrove and Matthew Kelty planned to trim a tree on a property. In order to prevent a large branch from falling onto nearby power lines, Lovegrove attached one end of a rope to his truck and directed Kelty to attach the other end to the branch. Kelty was to cut the branch while Lovegrove used his truck to keep the rope taut. Kelty climbed the tree, tied the rope around the branch and began cutting when Lovegrove accelerated his truck, causing the rope to break. As a result, the branch whipped onto the power lines and then back towards Kelty, pushing him out of the tree. Kelty suffered injuries from his fall. He sought personal injury protection (PIP) benefits from Lovegrove's automobile insurer, State Farm, which denied Kelty's claim.
Kelty subsequently filed a complaint alleging that State Farm was obligated to provide PIP benefits pursuant to Lovegrove's insurance policy and 21 Del. C. §2118, which provides for mandatory insurance coverage for injuries "arising out of ownership, maintenance or use" of a vehicle. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, denying the plaintiff's claim for PIP benefits. The court explained that the insured did not use his truck for transportation purposes as there was no evidence that the insured's vehicle was being used to move goods or people from one place to another.
The Superior Court noted that the Delaware Supreme Court has adopted the three-part test first recognized by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Continental Western Inc. Co. v. Klug, 415 N.W.2d. 876 (Minn. 1987). The Klug test considers whether the vehicle was an "active accessory" in causing the injury, whether there was an act of independent significance that broke the causal link between the use of the vehicle and the injuries inflicted, and whether the vehicle was used for transportation purposes. In order for an injury to arise out of the use of an automobile, there must be a causal relationship between the use of the vehicle for transportation purposes and the injury. In order to give meaning to the term "transportation purposes," there must be some evidence that the vehicle was being used to move goods or people from one place to another. Here, Kelty and Lovegrove were not using Lovegrove's truck in this manner. Rather, the truck was used to keep the rope taut.
Case Law Alert - 3rd Qtr 2012