Adventures in the Law: Road Rage Aftermath

Ever wonder about the aftermath of a road rage incident? You know, one of those cases where one driver takes offense at another and resorts to threats or actual violence. And maybe the second driver, out of fear or anger, responds in kind.

When the incident is over and the dust settles, who is responsible for the damage and injury? Who picks up the tab?

A recent federal case provides insight. A professional trucker was driving his rig along the highway, headed in the same direction as a man driving his car. Apparently, the trucker cut the other driver off. We’ll call that other driver Otto. (Get it? Otto. Sounds like auto).

Apparently, Otto had had a bad day or had been cut off one too many times by truckers. He managed to pass the truck and park his car in a way that blocked the truck, bringing it to a standstill. He then exited his car and approached the truck, boiling mad.

The trucker rolled down the driver’s side window, at which point he was confronted by a furious Otto. According to the trucker’s later account, Otto pulled open the driver’s side door of the truck and unleashed a torrent of threatening language.

Well, Otto had picked the wrong trucker to threaten. This trucker kept a pistol at the ready in the cab of his truck. When Otto opened the truck door and threatened him, the trucker took the gun in hand, pointed it at Otto’s chest, and pulled the trigger.

Otto had blocked his last rig. He was dead.

This is the point when the lawyers got involved, converting this violent road rage incident into a mundane exercise in insurance law.

Otto’s widow sued the trucker and his company, asserting various tort claims. The trucker’s auto insurance carrier stepped in with a declaratory judgment action, seeking a ruling that Otto’s death was not covered by its policy and that the carrier should be declared free from all claims arising from the incident.

The case raised an issue you may want to think about whenever you hear about a road rage incident resulting in death, injury, or damage: Is the incident covered by the auto insurance company of either driver?

The court began its decision by reciting a general principle of contract interpretation that favors the insured (and, therefore, the widow in this case): Any ambiguity in the language of an insurance policy will be resolved in favor of the insured and against the insurance company (which, after all, wrote the policy).

But any relief the widow felt was short-lived, because the court quickly found that there was no ambiguity in the policy. Under the language of the policy, as interpreted by the courts of the applicable state, the physical violence must result from the “ownership, maintenance, or use” of the vehicle in question—the truck in this case—in order to be covered.

The court did not hesitate in ruling that Otto’s death did not result from the “ownership, maintenance, or use” of the trucker’s rig. The trucker’s driving was not what killed Otto. The two vehicles never even touched each other. In fact, they were both parked at the time of the shooting.

If you’re thinking that the trucker won and the widow lost, you’re only half right. The widow did lose because the court’s decision let the trucker’s insurer off the hook. But the trucker also lost because he was still in the lawsuit, responsible for his own defense costs and for any damages the widow might win. The only real winner was the trucker’s insurer.

The lesson? Insurance law provides yet one more reason to avoid involvement in a road rage incident. So, for heaven’s sake, try not to cut off another driver. If you can’t avoid it, try to look apologetic and give that little my-bad wave. If the other driver insists on retaliating, do your best to end or at least de-escalate the confrontation.

If you’re the one that got cut off, pause, take a deep breath, and reflect on how much you want to avoid an altercation and the damage and litigation that might result.