In a recent decision that clarifies the dusty legalese of auto insurance policies, the Arizona Supreme Court has sided with employees over insurance giants. The court's ruling asserts that insurance policies should cover employees when they're using vehicles for work purposes—even if said vehicles aren't company-owned. This landmark decision arose from the case of Cravens v. Montano, involving a tragic traffic collision that resulted in the death of Samantha Cravens. Montano, employed by Casas Custom Floor Care, LLC, was on his way to correct a timesheet at his employer's main yard post-work when he ran a red light and collided with Cravens's vehicle.

As reported by the Arizona Supreme Court's administrative office , the unanimous ruling penned by Vice Chief Justice John R. Lopez IV vacated previous interpretations of the insurance policy language. More specifically, the court drew a line in the sand, defining that for a vehicle's use to be covered under "in connection with your business," it must be "directly involved with, or in furtherance of, an employer’s business purpose but does not include a routine commute to or from an employer’s office." This interpretation brushed away the appellate concept that coverage hinged on merely "an association, link, or relationship" between the vehicle use and the business. Instead, it offers a narrower, yet more straightforward application.

The sobering facts of the Cravens v. Montano case impelled a deeper look at the contentious area of contingent Morris agreements—wherein an insured defendant can essentially admit to liability and pass on the buck to their insurance company by way of settlement, as explored in Montano's agreement with Cravens. Lopez emphasized that these agreements remain valid, given they're free from the taints of fraud, collusion, unfairness, or unreasonableness. He stated, "the contingency does not prejudice Cincinnati’s rights, nor does it leave Montano devoid of protection because the triggering event is narrow in scope," as stated by the Arizona Supreme Court's administrative office .