Utah Court of Appeals
Can res ipsa loquitur establish uninsured motorist liability for road debris accidents? Nau v. Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois Explained
Summary
Nani Nau’s tire ruptured after running over unidentified debris on I-15, causing an accident. Safeco denied his uninsured motorist claim, arguing he could not prove the debris was left by an uninsured vehicle. The district court granted summary judgment for Safeco.
Analysis
In Nau v. Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur could establish that road debris was left by an uninsured motorist when the evidence supported multiple equally likely explanations for the debris’s presence.
Background and Facts
Nani Nau was driving on I-15 when his tire ruptured after running over debris he described as resembling concrete, rubber, or carpet approximately two to three feet wide. He lost control and crashed into the median, suffering serious injury. Nau filed an uninsured motorist claim with Safeco, arguing an unidentified motorist caused the debris. Safeco denied the claim, and the district court granted summary judgment in Safeco’s favor.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether res ipsa loquitur could establish that debris was left by a negligent uninsured motorist when the evidence supported multiple explanations. Under Utah Code § 31A-22-305, claimants must prove the existence of an uninsured motor vehicle by clear and convincing evidence consisting of more than the covered person’s testimony.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court distinguished cases where res ipsa loquitur successfully established uninsured motorist liability. Heavy objects like 200-pound engine heads or truck bench seats on highways create reasonable inferences of negligent securing because few alternative explanations exist. However, concrete, rubber, or unidentified debris could result from construction negligence, highway maintenance, tire defects, or other non-motorist causes. The court held that when evidence supports multiple equally likely explanations, choosing one over another constitutes impermissible speculation.
Practice Implications
This decision establishes that circumstantial evidence in uninsured motorist debris cases must point to negligent motorist conduct as the most probable explanation, not merely a possible one. Practitioners should focus on gathering specific evidence about debris characteristics, location, and surrounding circumstances that distinguish cases with clear inferences from those requiring speculation. The ruling reinforces Utah’s demanding clear and convincing evidence standard for phantom vehicle claims.
Case Details
Case Name
Nau v. Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois
Citation
2017 UT App 44
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20150427-CA
Date Decided
March 9, 2017
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
To establish uninsured motorist coverage for accidents caused by road debris under res ipsa loquitur, the inference that the debris was left by a negligent motorist must be more probable than other explanations, not merely speculative.
Standard of Review
Correctness for summary judgment determinations
Practice Tip
When pursuing uninsured motorist claims involving road debris, gather specific evidence about the type and characteristics of debris to distinguish cases where negligent securing by a motorist is the most likely explanation from those with multiple equally plausible causes.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.