Insurance Coverage and the Independent Concurrent Cause Rule
In 'Siebert v. Wisconsin American Mutual Ins. Co.' (2009AP1422)
the plaintiff sued the defendant for injuries sustained in a car
accident. The defendant’s insured had loaned his car to his
daughter who in turn loaned the car to a friend, Jesse Raddatz.
Raddatz was given permission to run an errand, but instead
picked up the plaintiff and was driving to a party when the car
accident occurred. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s
automobile liability policy covered Raddatz's negligence. Under
the policy, Raddatz's negligence would be covered if he was an
insured person which, in this case, would entail permission to
operate the vehicle and not exceeding the scope of that
permission. The case went to trial on a permissive use coverage
question where a jury found that Raddatz had exceeded the scope
of permission and there was no coverage.
The plaintiff then brought a negligent entrustment claim and the
defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that under the
independent concurrent cause rule the plaintiff’s claim for
negligent entrustment was barred as a result of the jury’s
previous finding as to the scope of coverage. The circuit court
agreed with the defendant and granted summary judgment. The
plaintiff appealed.
The court of appeals reversed, holding that Raddatz's own
negligence may be excluded from coverage, but the risk
associated with the defendant's insured lending her car to him
is not. The independent concurrent cause rule is not concerned
with who is covered for their actions, but with whether the risk
is one the policy insures. The independent concurrent cause rule
extends coverage to a loss caused by an insured risk even though
an excluded risk is a contributory cause. The independent
concurrent cause must provide the basis for a cause of action in
and of itself and must not require the occurrence of the
excluded risk to make it actionable. The driver’s negligence was
excluded, but the insured’s alleged negligent entrustment was
not an excluded risk and could stand alone as an independent
cause of action.
