The Court sort of answers certified questions from a federal district court in Utah. The accident occurred in Pima County at a mine operated by Staker. Staker had a haul agreement with BDR. BDR hauled rock materials between processing areas.  Staker required BDR to name it as an additional insured on BDR’s liability policy with Scottsdale Insurance. BDR’s employee was injured when he attempted to dislodge a lock between the trailer’s dual set of tires. The tires exploded, and he was injured. The employee then sued Staker on a theory that the trailer was improperly loaded, the road was not maintained, and Staker did not implement safety training and techniques. Scottsdale Insurance denied coverage asserting that Staker did not qualify as an insured because Staker was not using the vehicle at the time of the accident. Staker then successfully defended the case and demanded Scottsdale reimburse the $1 million dollars it spent on defending the case. First, the Court holds the vehicle was in use and “use” continues from the truck being loaded until it is unloaded. The second question is whose use? This “use” is not independent from BDR’s employee’s use of the vehicle. The claim was that Staker failed to maintain the roads and such claim did not arise from the “use” of the covered vehicle. Third, “managerial functions of an additionally named insured on a commercial automobile policy” do not constitute “use” of a covered vehicle. The court also agreed there is no compelling reason to shift the burden of employee and contractor training onto a subcontractor’s automobile insurer. Fourth, the court discusses causation and the relationship to automobile insurance policies. “For there to be causation, the use of the covered vehicle need only be connected to the negligent ownership, maintenance, or use of the covered vehicle.”

The court sends the case back to Utah for the federal district court to decide how this plays out.  This last part is confusing and does not answer the fourth certified question. But as we read this opinion, Scottsdale did not owe a duty to defend Staker under BDR’s policy. This case was argued two years ago.  Why did it take two years? We watched the oral argument and were confused then by several of the questions and the jumps between tort law and insurance. This opinion clarifies some of this, but in the end, the court ducks the dispute on duty to defend. The court gives up with providing an answer and leaves the parties to argue some more