The District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Allmerica Financial Benefit Insurance Company, et al. v. Heidi Hunt, et al., Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-02767, 2 025 WL 3634209 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 15, 2025) recently expanded the requirements for underinsured motorist coverage (“UIM”) by broadly interpreting the term “arising out of” in a Declaratory Judgment Action seeking a court declaration as to whether Underinsured Motorist (“UIM”) coverage is provided when there was an accidental discharge from a firearm.
In Hunt, the claimant, James Hunt, was killed when a firearm owned by the underinsured tortfeasor, Lloyd Amarsingh, accidentally discharged and shot and killed Hunt while both cars were stopped next to each other at a traffic light. The investigation revealed that the tortfeasor regularly stored his firearm in the glove compartment while traveling to and from work and he was unloading his gun at the red light when the gun accidentally discharged twice.
James Hunt’s employer, TB Philly, maintained an insurance policy for its company vehicles with Allmerica Financial Benefit Insurance Company (“Allmerica”) that provided UIM benefits, unstacked. The UIM endorsement of the Allmerica policy that included a condition that “damages must result from the ownership, maintenance or use of an underinsured motor vehicle.”
Allmerica initiated the declaratory action to clarify and resolve its obligations under the applicable policy. The Court made a preliminary determination that the “arising out of” language contained in the MVFRL must prevail against the conflicting “results from” language contained in the Allmerica policy. Therefore, the court applied a “but for” standard to determine whether UIM coverage applies. With no Pennsylvania authority on point, the court contrasted two approaches from other jurisdictions, the “categorical” approach and the “two-prong test” approach.
The categorical approach organizes vehicle shootings into four distinct categories, each with their own guidance on UIM coverage. The four categories concern: (1) the accidental discharge of guns inside vehicles while the occupant is handling the gun; (2) the accidental discharge of guns being loaded or unloaded from a vehicle; (3) the use of a vehicle as a gun rest; and (4) the accidental discharge of guns inside a vehicle caused by the movement or operation of the vehicle. Taliaferro v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 821 So. 2d 976 (Ala. 2001); Cameron Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ward, 599 S.W.2d 13 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980). The Court rejected this approach being that the fact pattern of Hunt did not fit into any of the categories.
Instead, the Court utilized the two-prong test approach. This approach requires a court to determine whether (1) the vehicle is regularly used to transport the firearm; and (2) the discharge of the firearm was the result of negligent, unintentional conduct. State Cap. Ins. Co. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 318 N.C. 534, 350 S.E.2d 66, 69-70 (1986); Smith v. Stover, 179 N.C. App. 843, 635 S.E.2d 501, 503 (2006). This approach typically views the transportation of firearms as an ordinary and customary use of a motor vehicle, which complies with the precedent set by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Squires, 667 F.3d 388, 391–92 (3d Cir. 2012) (“’arising out of’ in an insurance policy means causally connected with, not proximately caused by. ‘But for causation” […] is enough to satisfy this provision of the policy.”) Using this approach, it was determined that tortfeasor’s vehicle was regularly used to transport the firearm on his commute to work and the discharge of the firearm was negligent and unintentional. In turn, the Hunt Court liberally construed the term “arising out of” under the but-for analysis and explained that the law requires it to err on the side of the insured for doubtful insurance cases. Because the undisputed facts showed that the tortfeasor regularly used his motor vehicle to transport his firearm and the discharge that killed James Hunt was accidental and unintentional, UIM coverage was triggered under the Allmerica policy.
The Hunt decision can be found here.
For additional questions, please contact Glen Shikunov, Esq. and/or Steven Tambon, Esq.
This article was prepared by McCormick & Priore, P.C. to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is in no way intended to provide legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of McCormick & Priore, P.C.