Chapter 6 - § 6.5 • AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

§ 6.5 • AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

The factual circumstances under which there may be auto insurance coverage arising from a construction situation involving insured vehicles under an auto policy are too numerous to completely address as a subpart to this chapter. Rather, this section will discuss the guiding principles in the analysis of a potential claim under a business auto policy for the various parties that may have vehicles involved on a construction site. For specific Colorado analysis of factual circumstances that may constitute coverage, both under an auto insurance policy and formerly under the Colorado No-Fault Statute, readers are referred to an excellent publication updated yearly by Richard W. Laugeson, entitled Motor Vehicle Insurance Update - Questions and Answers About the Colorado Auto Accident Reparations System.¹⁴⁵

The language of C.R.S. § 42-7-413(1)(c) dealing with insurance coverage in the state of Colorado requires liability insurance policies to insure every person named on the policy on account of the maintenance, use, or operation of the motor vehicle against loss from the liability imposed by law arising from such maintenance, use, or operation. Colorado has interpreted this statute very broadly to find coverage for injured persons arising out of the use of a motor vehicle. The Colorado Supreme Court has held that an accident occurs "'on account of the use of a motor vehicle' if the injury that forms the basis of the claim is causally related to a conceivable use of the insured vehicle that is not foreign to its inherent purpose."¹⁴⁶

Some Colorado personal injury cases arising out of a construction setting and interpreting an auto policy include injuries sustained during the loading or unloading of a construction vehicle, e.g., injuries received while unloading a Ready-Mix concrete truck when the hose connected to the truck knocked a brick off a roof (held to arise out of the use of the vehicle);¹⁴⁷ and a situation where a plaintiff was injured when a collapsible side awning permanently attached to a truck that was used as a refreshment stand fell and struck her head as she was buying refreshments (held to be within the statutory use of a motor vehicle for purposes of insurance coverage).¹⁴⁸

Another case of interest, which offers a good discussion of how a typical construction setting is viewed under an automobile policy, is Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. McMichael.¹⁴⁹ In McMichael, McMichael was employed by Irving F. Jensen...