Melanie C. Malach

The respondents were catastrophically injured when two individuals dropped a large boulder from a highway overpass onto their vehicle.

The wrongdoers had used a vehicle to transport the boulders to the overpass.

The respondents sought to recover damages from their own insurer under the inadequately insured motorist coverage, arguing the injuries arose from the use or operation of the wrongdoers' vehicle.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the claim did not arise from the use or operation of a motor vehicle, as the rock throwing was an intervening act severable from the use of the vehicle.

The appeal was allowed and coverage was denied.

The respondents were catastrophically injured when two men dropped a boulder from a highway overpass onto their vehicle.

The men had used an underinsured vehicle to transport the boulders to the overpass.

The respondents sought coverage under the Family Protection Coverage endorsement of their automobile insurance policy.

The appellant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the injuries did not arise from the use or operation of an automobile.

The motion judge dismissed the motion and granted judgment for the respondents.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the underinsured vehicle was necessary to transport the boulders and its use contributed to the injuries, satisfying the purpose and causation test.