Allstate Insurance v. Graham Ex Rel. Graham

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding claimant \was simply not engaged in a transaction oriented to the use of the [covered auto] at the time of the accident\
• stating that plaintiff was not occupying vehicle because plaintiff “was simply not engaged in a transaction oriented to the use of’ the insured vehicle
• holding claimant not an occupant, since “not engaged in a transaction oriented to the use of the [insured vehicle],” when engaged in changing the tire on another vehicle
• holding claimant was not an occupant because she was “not engaged in a transaction oriented to the use of the [insured vehicle],” when engaged in changing the tire on another vehicle
• testing whether the transaction surrounding the injury was oriented to the use of the covered vehicle in determining “occupancy,” rather than testing physical proximity to the vehicle
• “We hold that Graham was simply not engaged in a transaction oriented to the use of the 1976 Ford at the time of the accident.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).