Larry Squires was insured by an auto policy issued by Allstate Propertyand Casualty Insurance Company (Allstate). While driving his car on a highway, Larry was injured when he swerved to avoid a box that was in the middle of the road. He filed for coverage under his policy's uninsured motorists (UM) coverage. Allstate denied the claim. The insurer then filed for a declaratory judgment that it had no obligation to respond to the claim and Squires filed a counterclaim alleging breach of contract. The initial court ruled in favor of Allstate and Squires appealed.

On appeal, the two parties reasserted their positions. Allstate argued that it's UM coverage did not apply because the loss did not arise out of the use of a vehicle, much less than an uninsured vehicle. Specifically, the insurer relied on the following, policy language:

"[W]e [Allstate] will pay damages to an insured person [Squires] for bodily injury which an insured person is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an uninsured auto. Bodily injury must be caused by accident and arise out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of an uninsured auto."

Squire's position was that the box was in the roadway, which had no easy or likely access by pedestrians, because it fell from an unidentified vehicle; therefore his loss should qualify for UM coverage. The higher court dealt with the question of whether a box, falling from an uninsured vehicle (which was presumed, since it was unidentified), constituted the ownership, maintenance or use of a vehicle.

The higher court reviewed a variety of cases that had been decided upon by various intermediate-level courts in the same jurisdiction. The cases typically involved accidents where a vehicle had some nexus in the events or was the situs of an accident. However, in most of those cases, the vehicle's existence was not found to have a direct bearing on a loss. Many of the decisions included statements that, if causality or "but for" instances could have been established; the rulings would have recognized instances of motor vehicle ownership, maintenance or use. The court then cited an instance of a loss where the injury, while not directly caused by vehicular contact, did stem directly from a vehicular collision. The court in that instance ruled that the injury in that case would not have occurred BUT FOR (emphasis ours) the use of a vehcle.

The court found that Squires loss could, similarly, be connected to the use of a vehicle and, since the lack of identity presumes lack of insurance, the loss qualified for protection under Allstate's UM coverage. The lower court's decision was reversed in favor of the insured.

Allstate Property and Casualty Ins. Co., v. Larry G. Squires, Appellant. USCTApp. 3re Circuit, No. 11-1664 Filed December 15, 2011. Reversed. http://www.ca3.uscourts[dot]gov/opinarch/111664p[dot]pdf (downloaded 1/30/12)