The Kentucky Supreme Court Utilizes the Integral Parts Test in Hit-and-Run UM Cases

Standard uninsured motorist policies provide coverage for hit and run accidents. However, the specific language utilized by various insurers may differ somewhat in using the term “strikes” or “hits” to set up coverage. As an example, State Farm’s policy provides coverage when an uninsured motor vehicle “strikes” the insured vehicle while Safeco’s policy provides damages when an uninsured motor vehicle “hits” the insured vehicle. See, e.g., State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Baldwin, 373 S.W.3d 424, 427 (Ky. 2012) (discussing the two different policies).

There are three principle ways in which coverage can arise in this context. First, uninsured motorist (UM) coverage is available when an uninsured vehicle directly, physically contacts the insured’s vehicle. Second, UM coverage is available when an integral part of an uninsured vehicle directly, physically contacts the insured vehicle. Finally, an accident is covered if the uninsured vehicle projects a force in a chain reaction situation through an intermediate object which mobilizes the intermediate object in striking the insured vehicle.

Recently, the Kentucky Supreme Court in State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Baldwin, 373 S.W.3d 424 (Ky. 2012), adopted the integral part test and concluded that in the two cases before it there was no UM coverage. The first case involved an unknown driver in a flatbed truck traveling immediately in front of the insured, Baldwin, with a large plastic tarpaulin hanging from the back of the truck’s trailer. The tarpaulin flew from the flatbed truck, catching upon the insured’s vehicle and wrapping itself on the left-hand side of the insured’s vehicle from the front to the driver’s side door and steps. The insured drove his truck to a truck stop to remove the tarpaulin from his vehicle. As the insured was dismounting from his vehicle he slipped and fell on the tarpaulin injuring his back. The insured sought UM coverage from State Farm claiming that his injuries were the result of a hit and run accident with an unknown driver. State Farm denied coverage.

In the second claim, the insured, Reynolds, was driving on the highway when a large sheet of ice dislodged from a tractor trailer and struck her vehicle, injuring her and damaging her vehicle. Reynolds sought UM coverage from Safeco.

Analyzing the two claims before it, the Kentucky Supreme Court noted that there was no direct physical contact between the uninsured vehicle and Baldwin and Reynolds’ vehicles. The Court noted that neither Baldwin nor Reynolds alleged that the uninsured vehicles projected any force upon the tarpaulin or ice sheet that caused the objects to strike their vehicles. Rather, both the tarpaulin and the ice sheet fell or broke off the uninsured vehicles. Therefore, the Court’s analysis turned to the question of whether the tarpaulin and ice sheet were integral parts of the uninsured motor vehicles.

The Court in Baldwin adopted the integral parts test which had been adopted by other jurisdictions. See, e.g., Allstate Ins. Co. v. Killakey, 78 N.Y.2d 325, 574 N.Y.S.2d 927, 580 N.E.2d 399, 401 (1991) (“‘[P]hysical contact’ occurs within the meaning of the statute[] when the accident originates in collision with an unidentified vehicle, or an integral part of an unidentified vehicle.”); Progressive Classic Ins. Co. v. Blaud, 212 Ariz. 359, 132 P.3d 298, 301 (Ct. App. 2006) (“[A] tire constitutes an integral part of a motor vehicle. … Thus, collision with a tire tread might constitute physical contact with the motor vehicle.”). But see Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Elchehimi, 249 S.W.3d 430 (Tex. 2008) (declining to adopt the integral parts test).

The Kentucky Court began its analysis by observing that any motor vehicle is necessarily made up of the vehicle’s integral parts. The Court anchored its analysis with a reference to the Merriam–Webster Dictionary (2012) which defined the word “integral” as “essential to completeness” or “formed as a unit with another part.” Baldwin, 373 S.W.3d at 431. The Court found this definition helpful when considering what items would constitute an integral part of a motor vehicle. “Typically, mechanical parts and factory-installed components are integral to a vehicle because they are essential to the vehicle’s completeness or are otherwise formed as a unit with the vehicle.” The Court also found that the “permanency of an item that is affixed to a vehicle can also bear on whether a part is integral to a vehicle or not.” In those situations where an item is intended to be permanent, the Court found that it was likely to be an integral part of the vehicle.The Court explained the concept of permanency, “[P]permanency refers not to the permanency of an individual part, but to the permanency of the function that a part fulfills. For example, tires are integral parts of vehicles because the function they fulfill are essential to the vehicle’s completeness, even though individual tires are regularly replaced.”

Utilizing the integral parts test, the Court found that the tarpaulin involved in the Baldwin case and sheet of ice involved in the Reynolds case were not integral parts of the uninsured vehicles. As an example, the Court found that ice accumulation on a vehicle was a natural occurrence, not a mechanical, factory-installed, or otherwise permanent item. With respect to the tarpaulin, the tarpaulin itself was not a mechanical or factory-installed object on the tractor-trailer. Additionally, there was no evidence that the tarpaulin was a permanent or semi-permanent feather of the tractor-trailer. There was no statutory requirement that commercial vehicles have a tarpaulin.