The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals recently issued an important decision regarding uninsured motorist (“UM”) coverage.  In Liki v. First Fire & Casualty Ins. of  Hawaii, Inc., No. 28076 (Ct. App. Haw. Feb. 29, 2008), the ICA extended the Hawaii Supreme Court’s “chain of events” test to find a sufficient connection between the injured employee and the insured vehicle to establish coverage under the employer’s Business Auto Policy.

     The employee drove to and from work everyday in a truck assigned to him but owned by his employer.  On the day of the accident, he drove the truck to a gas station in order to clean a sump.  As he was working, an uninsured driver backed her vehicle into the employee, causing injury.

     The Business Auto Policy insured the truck driven by the employee.  The UM endorsement included under “WHO IS INSURED” anyone occupying a covered auto.  After the insurer denied coverage, the employer sued.  The trial court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment after finding that the truck was not related to the employer’s cleaning of the sump or the occurrence of the accident.

     The ICA reversed, holding that the trial court erred in its application of the “chain of events” test adopted by the Hawaii Supreme Court in Dawes v. First Ins. Co. of Hawaii, Ltd., 77 Hawaii 117, 132-133, 883 P.2d 38, 53-54 (1994).  In applying the test, Dawes held (1) if a person was a passenger in an insured vehicle being operated by a named insured, (2) during the chain of events resulting in injury to the person caused by an accident involving an uninsured motor vehicle, (3) then the person was a “covered person” at the time of injury to the same extent as the named insured and would be entitled to UM benefits.

     Although the insurer argued there was no coverage because the employee was not a passenger, the ICA rejected the argument.  Dawes did not limit coverage to only individuals who could satisfy the conditions it set forth.  Here, the employee was a permissive user of the vehicle.  Under Dawes, if the employee could demonstrate some connection with the insured vehicle, he was entitled to coverage.  The connection existed here because the employee was using the truck during the course of his employment to get to and from the jobsite where he was injured, and to store and transport the equipment he was using as part of his duties at the time of injury.  These factors established some connection to the insured vehicle.  Therefore, UM coverage extended to the injuries the employee received as a pedestrian.