The appellant was blinded in the eye by a bungee cord while helping the respondent secure a mattress to the roof of a van.
The appellant sued the respondent for negligence.
The respondent sought coverage under the appellant's automobile insurance policy and his own homeowners' policy.
The Court of Appeal held that the respondent was not an 'occupant' or in 'possession' of the van, so the automobile insurer had no duty to defend.
However, the Court found that the homeowners' insurer did have a duty to defend, as the allegations of negligence (failing to warn about or test the bungee cord) could constitute concurrent non-auto related causes, meaning the claim did not clearly fall within the policy's exclusion for injuries arising from the use of a motor vehicle.
