Underinsured Ruling: Court Denies Coverage for Death After Taxi Ride

---

The recent appellate decision in Martin v. MAPFRE reinforces that a causal link for underinsured motorist coverage to apply cannot be too remote, even with a broad interpretation of an auto’s “use.”

A tragic death following a taxi ride has resulted in a key Massachusetts appellate decision clarifying the boundaries of underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage. The case raised a critical question: When does a death “arise out of the ownership, maintenance or use” of a vehicle if the vehicle itself was not the direct instrument of harm?

In its ruling, the Appellate Division of the District Court affirmed a summary judgment in favor of MAPFRE Insurance. The court found that the connection between the taxi’s use and a passenger’s subsequent death from acute intoxication was too “remote” to trigger coverage under a standard auto policy’s UIM coverage.

A Christmas Party Ends in Tragedy

The case stems from the events of December 8, 2015. Patricia Martin attended a company Christmas party at the Halibut Point Restaurant in Gloucester, where she became severely intoxicated. Recognizing her condition, restaurant personnel called Gloucester Taxi & Livery Service, Inc. to take her home. She left the restaurant in a taxi at 10:30 P.M.

According to court filings, the taxi driver, Anthony Curcuru, accepted extra money from restaurant staff to ensure Mrs. Martin got inside her house safely. During the ride, Mrs. Martin passed out in the cab. Upon arrival at her home, the driver assisted her inside, where she promptly fell to the floor. The driver helped her onto a couch.

The Gloucester Police report narrative from Detective Steven Mizzoni, who interviewed the driver the next day, stated that as the driver was leaving, he saw Mrs. Martin fall and hit her head. The driver helped her up and asked if she wanted to go to the hospital. Mrs. Martin declined and told him to leave.

When Mrs. Martin’s daughter arrived home at about 11:15 P.M., she found her unresponsive, face down on a love seat. Resuscitation failed, and an emergency room doctor at the Addison Gilbert Hospital pronounced her dead shortly at 12:23 A.M. An autopsy determined the cause of death as “acute intoxication due to the combined effects of alcohol and diphenhydramine [Benadryl],” with a blood alcohol content of .39. The incident also led to a separate wrongful death lawsuit filed by the Martin estate against the restaurant and the taxi company for their alleged negligence suit that was settled in May 2020, for an undisclose amount.

The Insurance Coverage Dispute

The subsequent insurance claim involved two different auto policies. New Hampshire Insurance Company insured Gloucester Taxi with bodily injury limits of $20,000 per person. Jeffrey and Patricia Martin held a standard Massachusetts automobile policy with MAPFRE’s subsidiary Commerce Insurance that included $50,000 in optional UIM coverage.

Representing his wife’s estate, Mr. Martin filed a UIM claim with MAPFRE, seeking the $30,000 difference between the taxi’s liability limit and his own UIM coverage.

In a letter dated December 10, 2019, MAPFRE denied the claim. The insurer argued that the death did not constitute an “accident” that arose from the “ownership, maintenance or use of an auto” as defined in the policy. MAPFRE’s position was that the taxi was not involved in any collision and the direct cause of death—severe intoxication—pre-existed her entry into the vehicle. Furthermore, the company asserted that Mrs. Martin was not “occupying” the vehicle when the fatal injury occurred; she had been dropped off and was inside her home when she died. The insurer also noted that the claim was filed nearly four years after the date of loss.

The Court’s Ruling and Rationale

After the denial, Mr. Martin filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in Dedham District Court. Both parties eventually moved for summary judgment. The court ultimately sided with MAPFRE, and the plaintiff appealed that decision.

The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s ruling, agreeing that the fatal injury was too “attenuated” from the use of the taxi to warrant coverage. The panel adopted the trial court’s reasoning, stating, “the connection between Ms. Martin’s death and her use or operation of the taxi is too distant to be considered causally connected.”

The court analyzed the well-established legal standard for “arising out of the use” of a motor vehicle. It noted that while the standard is broader than the tort concept of “proximate cause,” it does not extend to every situation where a vehicle was merely involved in the chain of events. A “causal connection” must be “reasonably apparent.”

The judges found that the events that caused the death—the consumption of alcohol—occurred before Mrs. Martin ever entered the taxi. More importantly, her death occurred in her home after the taxi ride was complete.

The plaintiff had argued that the case was analogous to other Massachusetts decisions where coverage was found, but the court distinguished them. It found the facts differed significantly from Roe v. Lawn, where a sexual assault occurred inside a school bus during transport, creating a direct link. It also distinguished the case from the landmark Ultimate Livery decision. In that case, the livery service’s liability arose from its direct role in facilitating passenger intoxication and then dropping off a passenger whom the driver knew was going to drive, leading to a fatal accident. Here, the court found the taxi’s use had no such direct nexus to the cause of death.

Ultimately, the court placed the facts on the “no coverage” side of the “continuum of causation,” concluding the relationship between the taxi ride and the death was too “remote.”

Agency Checklists Takeaway: The Six-Year Statute of Limitations for UIM Claims

This decision interprets the often fact-specific meaning of the “arising out of the use” standard for auto insurance coverage. For agents explaining uninsured motorists’ coverages, it is essential to note that UIM coverage does not provide broader coverage for any tragedy peripherally involving a vehicle; the injury must have a direct, vehicle-related causal nexus to the injury suffered.

Commerce Insurance raised in its denial letter that Mrs. Martin’s estate filing its UIM claim four years after her death did not constitute “prompt” notice required by its policy. Mrs. Martin’s estate argued there was “no prejudice” from its claimed late notice. The statute of limitations for bodily injury claims under auto liability policies is three years. However, uninsured motorist and underinsured motorist claims are contractual claims, and the statute of limitations is six years. Also, the statute of limitations on UIM claims filed within that six-year period does not begin to run until the UIM insurer denies the claim.

If any readers have any questions, they may contact me at ogallagher@agencychecklists.com.