## Facts

- Chad Hahn was injured while seated on his motorcycle at a stoplight when Franklin Townsend’s car struck the motorcycle from the rear.
- The impact threw Hahn backward, and after the collision he landed on Townsend’s car before coming to rest on the roadway.
- Townsend was insured under an Alaska Family Automobile Insurance Policy issued by GEICO Choice Insurance Company (GEICO), which included liability coverage and underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage.
- Hahn’s damages exceeded Townsend’s liability limits, so Hahn sought additional recovery under Townsend’s UIM coverage by claiming he qualified as an “insured.”
- The UIM provision extended coverage to “any other person occupying the insured auto,” and the policy defined “occupying” as “in, upon, getting into or getting out of” the insured auto.
- Hahn asserted he was “occupying” Townsend’s vehicle because he was “upon” it when he landed on the car as a result of the crash.
- GEICO filed a declaratory-judgment action in superior court seeking a ruling that Hahn was not covered under the UIM provision.
- Hahn counterclaimed for a declaration of UIM coverage and attempted to join Townsend and Blue Cross Blue Shield (which claimed a subrogation interest in Hahn’s medical payments) as additional parties in the coverage case.
- The superior court granted GEICO summary judgment, interpreting “upon” in context and concluding Hahn was not “occupying” the car; it also dismissed the third-party claims against Townsend.

## Issues

1. Whether GEICO’s declaratory-judgment action presented an “actual controversy” and was ripe even though Hahn’s tort suit against Townsend had not fully concluded.
2. Whether Hahn “occupied” Townsend’s insured auto—given the definition “in, upon, getting into or getting out of”—when his only contact with the car was being thrown onto it during the collision.
3. Whether Townsend (and, as relevant, Blue Cross Blue Shield) had to be joined because they were real parties in interest or required parties in the UIM coverage declaratory action.

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s judgment for GEICO.
- The declaratory-judgment action was ripe because Hahn made a concrete claim for UIM benefits and the parties had adverse, present interests over whether Hahn qualified as an insured under the policy.
- Hahn was not “occupying” Townsend’s vehicle within the meaning of the UIM provision; his brief, unintended contact with the car caused by the mechanics of the crash did not make him an insured for UIM coverage.
- Townsend was not a real party in interest and was not required to be joined for the court to resolve the contract coverage dispute between Hahn and GEICO.
- Blue Cross Blue Shield could be a real party in interest to the extent it held a subrogation interest, but that did not change the coverage ruling.

## Legal Principles

- A declaratory-judgment action is justiciable when there is a concrete dispute over present legal rights and obligations; a coverage question may be ripe even if related tort litigation remains pending.
- Insurance policies are interpreted as contracts, applying ordinary meaning and the reasonable expectations of the insured, while avoiding manufacturing ambiguity where the language can be read sensibly in context.
- Under the canon *noscitur a sociis*, an unclear word may be interpreted by reference to surrounding associated words; thus, “upon” in the definition “in, upon, getting into or getting out of” is read alongside the other vehicle-use terms.
- “Occupying” an insured auto for UIM purposes requires more than fortuitous, momentary physical contact created by an impact; it requires a meaningful relationship to the vehicle as a vehicle (such as riding in it, entering it, exiting it, or being on it in connection with its use).
- In a dispute over whether a claimant is an “insured” under the tortfeasor’s UIM policy, the tortfeasor is not automatically a real party in interest or a required party when the question is purely contractual and complete relief can be granted between the claimant and insurer.

## Conclusion

The Alaska Supreme Court held that GEICO could seek declaratory relief on the UIM coverage question once Hahn asserted a concrete claim to benefits, and it interpreted “occupying” (including “upon”) to require a non-accidental, vehicle-related connection rather than a split-second landing caused by the crash, so Hahn was not an insured under Townsend’s UIM coverage and Townsend did not need to be joined in the coverage case.


Hahn v. Geico Choice Insurance Company, 420 P.3d 1160 (2018)