The Loading and Unloading exclusion found in the "Handling of Property" clause on the Commercial Auto policy literally states that the L & U exclusion applies only to the movement of "property", and the BI or PD resulting from the movement of "property". There is no mention of the movement of "persons". So at first glance the auto policy might provide coverage for the mishandled patient's lawsuit.

However the bigger question is if the vehicle into which a passenger is being loaded or unloaded would even be a Covered Auto as defined by H & NOA Symbols 8 and 9. None of the vehicles mentioned in the various scenarios would be considered a Hired Auto as they are neither leased, hired, rented or borrowed. This leaves Symbol 9, which applies to Non-Owned Autos "used in your business": it is improbable that any of the vehicles mentioned, i.e., taxis, ambulances, limos or a family friend, would be considered as being used in the business in any of the described scenarios. If this is correct, then the H & NOA auto policy is not the place to find coverage.

If the auto policy does not provide coverage, a review of the General Liability policy reveals that its Auto exclusion applies to the "use" of any auto, including "loading and unloading". But again, the L and U exclusion is limited to the movement of "property", with no mention of persons, so the GL policy would appear to provide coverage. Since all scenarios pertained to medical-related entities, the GL policy would probably contain a professional liability exclusion, so the ultimate place to seek coverage is the establishment's Malpractice insurance. Ideally, that policy would be written with the same carrier providing the GL so there wouldn't be any opportunity for one carrier to attempt to shift responsibility to the other.