Boulter v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company
United States District Court for the District of Montana
321 F. Supp. 3d 1199 (2018)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
Donald Boulter (plaintiff) and a coworker were on a long work-related road trip and stopped at McDonald’s. Boutler parked the work van in the parking lot and went inside to order a to-go breakfast. As he returned, an unknown motorist drove past in a rushed manner. Boutler stepped back out of the way, slipped, and fell about 60 feet from the van, suffering a head injury. Hartford Fire Insurance Company (defendant) insured the van under a policy with uninsured-motorist coverage for insureds, defined as anyone occupying an insured vehicle. Occupying meant “in, upon, getting in, on, out or off.” The policy specified that uninsured motorists included a hit-and-run vehicle only if it physically hit a covered vehicle or an insured. Boulter made an uninsured-motorist claim under the policy, but Hartford denied coverage on the ground that Boulter was not occupying the van. Both sides moved for summary judgment as to whether Boulter was an insured and the hit-and-run vehicle issue.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Watters, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
