The claimant was smoking a cigarette on her driveway as she was walking towards her house and tripped and fell forward striking her face against the rear bumper of her SUV before falling on the ground. The insurer argued that the claimant was not involved in an “accident”. Adjudicator Boyce dismissed the insurer’s motion found that the claimant was involved in an accident. Adjudicator Boyce held that the claimant met both the purpose and causation tests. With respect to the purpose test, there is no requirement that the vehicle in question be in active use. A parked vehicle falls within the ordinary scope of use and operation. Adjudicator Boyce also agreed that the accident met the causation test: but for the vehicle being parked in the driveway, the claimant would not have struck her face against the bumper and fallen to the ground. The dominant feature of the incident was the claimant striking her face against the bumper. The insurer argued that the condition of the driveway caused the claimant’s fall. Adjudicator Boyce held that this was speculative and noted that at her examination under oath, the claimant denied tripping on a protruding water pipe and found her evidence regarding the facts of loss to be credible.
