## Facts

- Kermit and Martha Rodemich owned a 1973 Winnebago motor home insured by State Farm.
- The Rodemichs let their collision coverage lapse and retained only comprehensive coverage.
- While driving on a paved road in Alamo State Park, Arizona, Mr. Rodemich swerved to avoid a four-legged animal, the motor home left the road, rolled over, and was severely damaged.
- No physical evidence of impact with an animal (e.g., hair, blood, or the animal itself) was found.
- The comprehensive policy covered loss to the vehicle “EXCEPT LOSS CAUSED BY COLLISION,” but stated that “colliding with birds or animals shall not be deemed to be loss caused by collision.”
- About eight months after the incident, the Rodemichs submitted a comprehensive claim; State Farm denied liability for the rollover damage (except glass breakage), asserting comprehensive coverage required actual contact with an animal.
- The Rodemichs sued for coverage; at trial, the court denied State Farm’s directed verdict motion and granted the Rodemichs’ directed verdict motion on coverage, ruling that swerving to miss an animal was covered, leaving to the jury only whether an animal was present.
- The jury awarded the Rodemichs $10,000; State Farm appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether “colliding with birds or animals” in the comprehensive coverage requires actual physical contact between the vehicle and an animal.
2. Whether the trial court erred by directing a verdict that swerving to avoid an animal was covered under comprehensive coverage absent proof of contact.

## Decision

- The court of appeals reversed the directed verdict for the insureds on the coverage issue.
- The court held that “colliding with birds or animals” requires actual physical contact; a “near miss” followed by a rollover does not satisfy the clause.
- The trial court erred by treating evasive swerving as covered as a matter of law and by removing the contact-based coverage question from the jury.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the requirement of proof of impact to invoke the animal-collision clause.

## Legal Principles

- Insurance contract terms are interpreted reasonably and given their ordinary meaning unless ambiguous.
- The ordinary meaning of “collision” and “colliding” implies physical contact.
- A policy provision stating that loss caused by “colliding with birds or animals” is not deemed “loss caused by collision” does not convert an evasive maneuver and resulting upset into a covered comprehensive loss without proof of impact.
- Contra proferentem does not apply where the disputed policy phrase is not ambiguous.

## Conclusion

The court of appeals held that comprehensive coverage for loss caused by “colliding with birds or animals” requires actual vehicle-animal contact; swerving to avoid an animal and overturning, without impact, is not covered under that clause, making the directed verdict on coverage improper.


Rodemich v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 130 Ariz. 538, 637 P.2d 748 (Ct. App. 1981)