Insurance Coverage: Insurer’s motion to strike uninsured motorist claim is denied after court finds sufficient allegations in the complaint for a trier of fact to decide whether there is a causal connection between the alleged negligence of an unknown motor vehicle operator and the fatal injuries sustained by the plaintiff’s decedent after he was struck by another vehicle while attempting to cross the street to render aid to those involved in the accident caused by the unknown operator

Background of the Plaintiff’s Uninsured Motorist Claim

The plaintiff, administratrix of the decedent’s estate, filed a complaint against the defendant, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, asserting a claim for uninsured motorist benefits. The defendant moves to strike the entire complaint on the grounds that the complaint does not sufficiently allege proximate cause to trigger liability for the uninsured motorist benefits claim.

The plaintiff’s decedent was a passenger in a vehicle operated by the plaintiff when they witnessed an unknown operator speed past them and collide with several vehicles. The plaintiff’s decedent instructed the plaintiff to pull over. The plaintiff’s decedent then exited the vehicle to render assistance to those involved in the accident. While crossing the roadway to render assistance, the plaintiff’s decedent was struck by a third vehicle, resulting in fatal injuries.

The plaintiff alleges that the injuries sustained by the plaintiff’s decedent were caused by the negligence of the unknown operator who caused the initial motor vehicle collision, and therefore asserts a claim for uninsured motorist benefits against the plaintiff’s decedent’s automobile liability insurer, Liberty Mutual.

Liberty Mutual’s Motion to Strike and Proximate Cause Argument

In its motion to strike, Liberty Mutual argues that the alleged negligence of the unknown operator cannot be the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. Specifically, Liberty Mutual asserts that the chain of causation from the original collision was broken when the plaintiff’s decedent told the plaintiff to pull over and exited the vehicle to cross the street.

The plaintiff, however, contends that the injuries sustained by plaintiff’s decedent were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the unknown operator’s conduct. In setting forth the applicable law, the court provides that a claim for uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage requires that the uninsured or underinsured vehicle be causally connected to the occurrence that results in the claimant’s loss.

The test of proximate cause is whether the tortfeasor’s conduct is a substantial factor in bringing about the plaintiff’s injuries. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving an unbroken sequence of events that tied his or her injuries to the tortfeasor’s conduct. The fundamental inquiry in the substantial factor test is whether the harm which occurred was of the same general nature as the foreseeable risk created by the tortfeasor’s negligence.

Court’s Ruling on Proximate Cause and Motion to Strike

In this case, the court finds that there was no lapse in time between the unknown operator’s conduct and the injuries. Based on the facts set forth in the plaintiff’s complaint, the accident caused by the alleged negligence of the unknown operator was still unfolding when the plaintiff’s decedent was struck. A fact finder would not have to resort to conjecture to draw an unbroken causal connection between the unknown operator’s alleged negligent conduct and the harm to the plaintiff’s decedent based on the facts in the complaint.

The court finds that it is necessarily implied that the plaintiff’s decedent would not have exited the vehicle absent the original alleged negligent conduct. The court concludes that the allegations in the complaint present a chain of events that is directly related to the situation created by the unknown operator’s conduct.

Accordingly, the issue of proximate cause must be left to the finder of fact and the defendant’s motion to strike is denied.

Paula Azab, Administratrix of the Estate of Andy Azab v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, No. UWY-CV-24-6075721-S, 2024 WL 4945291 (Conn. Super. Ct. Nov. 25, 2024).