Classified Ins. Corp. v. Vodinelich, C4-84-219
| Decision Date | 28 August 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. C4-84-219,C4-84-219 |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
| Parties | CLASSIFIED INSURANCE CORPORATION, Respondent, v. Robert A. VODINELICH, individually and as Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Decedents April Rae Vodinelich and Lance R. Vodinelich, Appellants, Nancy L. Vodinelich, deceased, by Robert Dolan, Special Administrator of the Estate of Nancy L. Vodinelich, Respondent. |
Syllabus by the Court
Accidental injuries resulting from the operation of a vehicle in a closed garage producing carbon monoxide arose out of the "use" of a car.
Robert W. Kettering, Jr., Brian J. Love, Arthur, Chapman & Michaelson, P.A., Minneapolis, for respondent.
James C. Erickson, Peterson, Bell & Converse, St. Paul, for appellants.
Heard, considered, and decided by PARKER, P.J., and FOLEY and HUSPENI, JJ.
This is an appeal from the trial court's determination in a declaratory judgment action brought by the respondent Classified Insurance Corporation (Classified) that Classified was not obligated to defend or indemnify appellant, the Estate of Nancy Vodinelich (Estate). The action underlying this declaratory judgment suit is one by Robert Vodinelich against the estate for the wrongful deaths of his two children. We reverse.
Nancy Vodinelich committed suicide in August 1978. In the process of taking her own life, she accidentally caused the deaths of her two children. Nancy shut her garage door and turned on the motor of her automobile. Tragically, the door to the house was ajar, and some of the carbon monoxide escaped into the house, killing the children. The family was found several days later.
Robert Vodinelich commenced an action against the Estate of Nancy Vodinelich for damages arising from the wrongful deaths of his children. He maintained an automobile insurance policy with Classified Insurance Company. Under the policy, Classified contracted to pay damages "arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a car."
Classified then brought this declaratory judgment action, claiming there was no liability coverage under the policy and Classified had no obligation to defend the estate. The trial court ruled that:
1. Nancy was an insured under the policy.
2. Nancy did not intend to injure her children. The policy exclusion for intentional injuries does not apply.
3. The deaths of the children did not arise out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle.
4. Classified has no duty to provide coverage on behalf of Nancy's estate against the wrongful death claims brought by Robert.
Whether the deaths of the Vodinelich children arose "out of the * * * use of a car" as defined in the Classified automobile insurance liability policy.
Language similar to "arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a car" in automobile and homeowner's insurance policies has inspired much litigation. "Arising out of" demands a causal connection between the use of the car and the injury. The causal connection required is something less than legal probable cause. "It is enough if 'the injury is a natural and reasonable incident or consequence of the use of the vehicle.' " Tlougan v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 310 N.W.2d 116, 117 (Minn.1981), (quoting Haagenson v. Nat'l Farmer's Union Prop. and Cas. Co., 277 N.W.2d 648, 652 (Minn.1979)). The car must be more than a mere situs of the accident. It must be an active accessory to the injury. Holm v. Mut. Serv. Cas. Ins. Co., 261 N.W.2d 598 (Minn.1977). Clearly, the Vodinelich car was an active accessory to the injury, and a cause of the deaths.
The No-Fault Insurance Act contains similar language. The act defines "maintenance or use of a vehicle" to require the "use of a motor vehicle, as a vehicle." Minn.Stat. § 65B.43(3) (1982) (emphasis added). This is interpreted to mean the vehicle must be in use for transportation purposes to collect no-fault benefits. Tlougan v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 310 N.W.2d 116, 117 (Minn.1981).
We must determine whether the requirement that the vehicle be used for transportation purposes applies to liability coverage as well as to no-fault benefits. Respondent argues that it does. The Minnesota Supreme Court has not directly addressed this question, but a review of the cases indicates that the "for transportation" language has crept into cases in which liability insurance is involved. For example, in Holm v. Mutual Service Cas. Ins. Co., 261 N.W.2d 598 (Minn.1977), the court stated "(t)he cases fully support the general proposition that for an injury to 'arise out of the use' of an automobile, it must be causally related to the employment of the vehicle for transportation purposes." Id. at 603 (emphasis added). Holm suffered injuries during an arrest, which occurred shortly after he and the officer left their vehicles which were used in the pursuit. In National Family Ins. Co. v. Boyer, 269 N.W.2d 10 (Minn.1978), the court concluded that there was no causal relationship between an accidental shooting which occurred while passengers were changing seats in a parked car, and "the use of the automobile for transportation purposes." Id. at 15. Both Holm and Boyer involved interpretation of automobile liability policies and denied coverage.
Likewise, the no-fault language appears in cases in which the policy in question covered homeowner's liability. In Engeldinger v. State Auto. & Cas. Underwriters, 306 Minn. 202, 236 N.W.2d 596 (1975), an intoxicated man had been assisted to his car and left overnight in freezing temperatures. The court stated that "certainly the use of the automobile as an overnight resting place for the decedent is not the use of it as a vehicle." Id. at 208, 236 N.W.2d at 600.
Finally, cases involving no-fault automobile insurance benefits often cite cases involving liability or homeowner's insurance policies as precedent for requiring that a motor vehicle be used for transportation purposes. See, e.g. Galle v. Excalibur Ins. Co., 317 N.W.2d 368, 370 (Minn.1982); Tlougan v. Auto-Owner's Ins. Co., 310 N.W.2d 116, 117 (Minn.1981); Haagenson v. National Farmer's Union Prop. & Cas. Co., 277 N.W.2d 648, 652 (Minn.1979); Steenson, Minnesota No-Fault Automobile Insurance 31 (1982).
However, review of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...asphyxiation of a minor child, resulting from the mother's use of the vehicle exhaust to commit suicide, Classified Insurance Corp. v. Vodinelich, 354 N.W.2d 63 (Minn.Ct.App.1984); and an attack by a dog on a passenger, Farmers Insurance Co. v. Till, 170 Ariz. 429, 825 P.2d 954 (1991); see ......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Whitehead
...143 Ariz. 567, 694 P.2d 1181 (App.1983). But see, Allstate Ins. Co. v. Gillespie, 455 So.2d 617 (Fla.App.1984); Classified Ins. Corp. v. Vodinelich, 354 N.W.2d 63 (Minn.App.1984). An often repeated observation is that in determining coverage, the question whether an injury resulted or arose......
-
Classified Ins. Corp. v. Vodinelich
...own test--a covered use is one " 'which is reasonably consistent with the inherent nature of the vehicle.' " Classified Ins. Corp. v. Vodinelich, 354 N.W.2d 63, 65 (Minn.App.1984), quoting Lawver v. Boling, 71 Wis.2d 408, 238 N.W.2d 514 (1976). Under that test, the court of appeals conclude......
- Classified Ins. Corp. v. Vodinelich, C4-84-219