RICHMOND, Va. (Legal Newsline) – The Virginia Supreme Court has sided with an insurance company in a lawsuit to determine whether a woman's uninsured motorist coverage covered her child's assault on a school bus.
“The circuit court did not err in finding that (Joseph S.) Corriveau's injuries were not covered by the uninsured motorist provision in the State Farm policy in that the injuries in question did not arise out of the use of the school bus as a school bus," Justice Cleo E. Powell said in a Dec. 19 opinion.
The issue presented on appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court was whether Corriveau's injuries arose out of the use of the school bus as a means of transportation.
Corriveau's mother, Tracey Ballagh, went to the Circuit Court of the City of Lynchburg to ask for a determination on his behalf that Ballagh’s automobile insurance policy issued by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. provided coverage for his injuries arising from the assault that took place on the bus. The Circuit Court dismissed the case and granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment.
The State Farm policy’s uninsured motorist provision covers an insured’s damages for bodily injuries that “arise out of the ownership, maintenance, or use” of the uninsured motor vehicle.
State Farm had argued that coverage under the policy did not apply as a matter of law because the child's alleged injuries did not arise from the use of the school bus as a vehicle in the ordinary manner for which it was designed. State Farm argued that the school bus was merely an enclosure for the commission of the criminal acts. The Supreme Court agreed.
Corriveau, a non-verbal child with autism, was 10 when his mother put him on a school bus for a ride to school in 2009. During the ride, Corriveau and another child were assaulted by two women – the bus driver and an aide.
The Circuit Court found as a factual matter that the “implements” that caused the injury were “the flyswatter, chemical spray, hands, feet and elbows,” the ruling states. In doing so, it found that none of the “implements” that caused the injuries were “implements of the vehicle. They were all independent of the vehicle itself,” the decision said.
Corriveau and another child who was also riding in the bus were both secured in harnesses that were attached to the bus, Corriveau's attorney argued. No matter, the Circuit Court said. The high court agreed.
The Circuit Court decision stated that while the special needs harnesses may have made it easier for the incident to occur, they failed to provide the necessary nexus because “the [incident] could have occurred without the restraints."
The court concluded that “the only role the bus played was to provide a location for these acts of assault to occur, and I don’t see that providing the necessary causal connection for the use of the bus . . . as a bus," the Circuit Court decision said.