## Facts

- Scott Mitchell worked for Madison County, Alabama, as a sanitation worker on a garbage truck, routinely riding on the truck and repeatedly getting off to collect trash and then getting back on.
- During a stop to collect trash, a third-party vehicle struck the garbage truck from the rear, fatally injuring Mitchell near the back of the truck.
- Evidence conflicted about Mitchell’s exact position at impact (on the truck, immediately beside it, or in/near the roadway).
- Madison County was insured under an Argonaut automobile liability policy that provided uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage to “anyone occupying a covered ‘auto.’”
- The dispute centered on whether Mitchell was “occupying” the garbage truck at the time of the collision given his work-related mounting/dismounting cycle.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Alabama law and the policy language extending UM/UIM coverage to anyone “occupying” a covered auto, Mitchell qualified as an insured when he was fatally injured while performing garbage-collection duties at the rear of the truck.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment for Mitchell’s estate and against Argonaut.
- The court held that, applying Alabama law, Mitchell was “occupying” the garbage truck at the time of his death and therefore was an insured under the UM/UIM provision.
- The court concluded Argonaut showed no reversible error in the district court’s application of Alabama law or its summary-judgment ruling.

## Legal Principles

- Under Alabama law, “occupying” in UM/UIM provisions is construed functionally and is not limited to being physically inside or on the vehicle at the instant of injury.
- Occupancy may be found where there is a substantial nexus between the injured person and the vehicle, including when the person is vehicle-oriented (rather than highway-oriented) and engaged in an activity essential to the vehicle’s use.
- Workers who repeatedly mount and dismount a vehicle as part of its intended operation can remain “occupants” while briefly on the ground if their conduct remains closely connected to the vehicle’s use.
- Proximity to the vehicle and a causal connection between the vehicle’s presence/use and the injury support a finding of occupancy.
- Ambiguities in insurance policy terms are construed against the insurer and in favor of coverage under Alabama rules of policy construction.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit held that a sanitation worker killed while performing duties directly tied to the garbage truck’s operation was “occupying” the vehicle for UM/UIM purposes, so the policy covered him despite uncertainty about his exact physical position at the moment of impact.


Argonaut Great Cent. Ins. Co. v. Mitchell, 482 F. App’x 478 (11th Cir. 2012)