In U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Goudeau, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2008 WL 5266378 (Tex. Dec. 19, 2008), the Texas Supreme Court held that a "Good Samaritan" who suffered serious injuries while assisting another motorist was not entitled to coverage under his employer's underinsured motorist policy because he was not "occupying" his vehicle at the time of the accident.
Louis Goudeau was severely injured after exiting his vehicle to assist another driver when a third driver smashed into the two cars, pinning him between the vehicles and the retaining wall. Goudeau worked for Advantage BMW and was driving one of its cars in the course of his employment at the time of his injuries. The primary issue in the case involved whether Goudeau could recover under his employer's underinsured motorist policy, which covered specifically designated employees as well as others "occupying" an Advantage vehicle during a collision. The trial court granted summary judgment against Goudeau on his underinsured motorist claim. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, finding a fact issue as to whether Goudeau was "occupying" his vehicle when the accident occurred.
The standard form underinsured motorist policy defined "occupying" as "in, upon, getting in, on, out or off." Goudeau argued that he was "occupying" the vehicle since he was "upon" it when he was injured. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that "a driver who has exited the car, closed the door, walked around the front, and then has the vehicle smashed into him cannot be said to be 'occupying' the vehicle at the time of the collision, even if afterwards he ends up partly 'upon' it. We cannot ignore the context by focusing solely on 'upon' and ignoring 'occupying.' Construing 'upon' to include the situation here would 'ascrib[e] to one word a meaning so broad that it is inconsistent with its accompanying words.'"
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
