Car Insurance

A woman who was injured when the motorcycle on which she was riding blew a rear tire is not entitled to uninsured motorist coverage, the Court of Special Appeals has affirmed.Dana Shafer provided uncontested evidence that the blowout was caused by a piece of rusted sheet metal from an unidentified vehicle, and that neither she nor the motorcycle’s owner/operator, Clarence Koontz, was negligent.However, she failed to present any facts that would allow for a reasonable conclusion that whoever or whatever caused the metal to be in the roadway did so as a result of a negligent act, Judge Arrie W.

Davis wrote for the court.In sum, [Shafer] has produced evidence to establish that the piece of metal was probably dislodged from a motor vehicle and that the rusted condition may well have caused it to dislodge, the court concluded, but there has been no showing of knowledge of the existence of the deteriorated state of the vehicle part and the attendant duty to correct it.The decision affirms a grant of summary judgment for two insurance companies. Nationwide Insurance Co. covered Shafer, while Interstate Automobile Insurance Co. covered Koontz.Shafer, who was badly injured in the September 2001 accident, sought $100,000 in uninsured motorist coverage from the insurers. She filed suit in Washington County Circuit Court when her claims were denied.To prevail, she had to show that her injuries were due to the negligence of an unknown vehicle owner or operator. The void in [Shafer’s] theory is the absence of any evidence of the negligent act or course of negligent conduct which resulted in the dislodgement of a metal piece in the roadway, Davis wrote.Shafer drew analogies to negligence cases involving business invitees, but the court found the comparison less than apt.[A]lthough the owner or operator has an obligation to inspect and maintain his/her motor vehicle, the ability to discern that a metal piece of a vehicle has rusted through to an extent that it will become dislodged is an event which cannot be as easily anticipated as the potential for injury to an invitee and, indeed, is an event which may never occur, Davis wrote. This is particularly true if the rusted part of the vehicle is not subject to detection during normal use or maintenance.For example, if the rusted section were from the vehicle’s underbody, the operator would have had no opportunity to observe the deteriorating condition, except of course, during routine maintenance or repair, and there is no evidence from which it can be determined whether and when there was such an opportunity to inspect, the court noted.UnpersuadedThe decision also declined to follow several out-of-state cases cited by Shafer. Two of those cases were unreported as well being from out of state, the court noted. Two other cases relied on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, in which an inference of negligence can be drawn from the occurrence itself. Shafer, however, expressly rejects res ipsa loquitur as a basis for recovery, Davis wrote.We hold that [Shafer] failed to present questions of material fact or facts from which reasonable inferences could be drawn that a negligent act caused the metal to be in the roadway, the court concluded.WHAT THE COURT HELDCase:Dana Shafer v. Interstate Automobile Ins. Co. et al., CSA No. 279, Sept. Term 2005. Reported. Opinion by Davis, J. Filed Dec. 23, 2005.Issue:Did the lower court err in awarding summary judgment on an uninsured motorist claim, where the insured claimed her injuries were caused by a piece of corroded sheet metal from an unidentified vehicle?Holding:No; affirmed. Evidence that corrosion may have caused the metal to come off an unidentified vehicle does not establish that the vehicle’s owner was on notice of the deterioration or had a duty to correct it.Counsel:Dennis F. O’Brien for appellant; James M. Connolly and Christine S. Britton for appellees.To prevail, she had to show that her injuries were due to the negligence of an unknown vehicle owner or operator.