EMERGENCY SERVICES INELIGIBLE AS PROPERTY DAMAGE

Personal Automobile	Occurrence
Ambiguity	Property Damage

In April 2007, Melody Berlin was driving when her car slid off the road. No damages or injuries were involved, but she had to be rescued by McKean Hose Company, a volunteer firefighting unit that provided emergency services in the area.

Shortly after the rescue, McKean requested to be reimbursed for the nearly $1,200 in materials and equipment expenses it incurred to perform the rescue. McKean made the request to both Berlin and Berlin’s auto insurer, Safe Auto. Safe Auto declined the claim. All three parties filed motions. McKean and Berlin sought a finding making the insurer responsible for payment as consequential costs. Safe Auto sought a finding that, as no eligible loss occurred under its policy, it had no financial responsibility. McKean and Berlin appealed after a lower court ruled in favor of Safe Auto.

In its review of the motions, the higher court examined the parties’ arguments, particularly in regard to the emergency services qualifying as eligible costs and various parts of the insurance policy. After its review, it found no merit in the argument that McKean’s expenses qualified for coverage. It agreed with the insurer policy definitions regarding what constituted property damage. It also failed to find ambiguity regarding how the policy defined property damage.

In the end, the higher court found no fault in the reasoning and decision of the lower court and it affirmed in favor of Safe Auto.

Alan Purton et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants v. Marriott International Inc., et al., Defendants and Respondents. Court of Appeal, California Court of Appeal, Fourth District. Case No. D060475. July, 3, 2013. Reversed. Westlaw, 287 S.W. 3d. 687