Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Evans

Decision Date10 December 1981
Docket NumberNo. 52948,52948
PartiesFARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Appellant, v. Karen M. EVANS, David Evans, Mike Ehinger, Danny Ireland, Kathy Rose, Appellees, and Farmers Insurance Company, Inc., Appellant.
CourtKansas Court of Appeals

Syllabus by the Court

1. Mere use of an insured vehicle does not trigger coverage under an automobile liability insurance policy providing coverage for bodily injury "arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use" of the insured vehicle.

2. In determining coverage for bodily injury claimed to have arisen out of the ownership, maintenance or use of an insured vehicle, a court must consider whether the injury sustained was a natural and reasonable incident or consequence of the use of the vehicle involved for the purposes shown by the declarations of the policy although not foreseen or expected.

3. As a general rule, "arising out of the use" of a vehicle requires a finding of some causal connection or relation between the use of the vehicle and the injury.

4. An injury does not arise out of the "use" of a vehicle within the meaning of an automobile liability insurance policy if it is the result of some intervening cause not identifiable with normal ownership, maintenance and use of the insured vehicle, even if there is some remote connection between the use of the vehicle and the injury complained of.

5. In a declaratory judgment action, the record is examined and it is held : The trial court erred in holding that injuries sustained when a passenger in a parked vehicle threw an M-80 explosive device out of the vehicle arose out of the use of that vehicle within the meaning of an automobile liability insurance policy.

Paul Hasty, Jr., of Wallace, Saunders, Austin, Brown & Enochs, Overland Park, for appellant Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., Inc.

Edward M. Boyle of Payne & Jones, Chartered, Olathe, for appellant Farmers Ins. Co., Inc.

Thomas R. Martindale, Overland Park, and David P. Woodbury of Nugent & Short, Chartered, Overland Park, for appellees Karen M. Evans and David Evans.

Before PRAGER, Justice Presiding, ABBOTT, J., and HARMAN, C. J., Retired, assigned.

ABBOTT, Judge:

This is an appeal by two automobile liability insurance carriers from an order granting summary judgment against them holding that the respective policies issued by them provided coverage for the accident in question.

The determinative issue in this case is whether liability for bodily injury caused by the throwing of a lighted firecracker (M-80) from the rear of a parked station wagon "arose out of the use of an automobile" so as to be covered under the automobile liability insurance policies in issue.

On April 28, 1979, a going-away party was being held for David and Karen Evans. The party was held in a large, open field. Several bonfires were going; keg beer was available. It started to rain and turn cold. Damon Rose (not a party to this action), at his wife's request, parked the Roses' station wagon so that the back seat was facing a bonfire. The Rose station wagon has three seats, the back one of which faces the rear of the station wagon. The tailgate was open. Mike Ehinger was sitting in the middle of the back seat facing the fire. Kathy Rose and Danny Ireland were beside him. It is alleged that Ehinger, with the aid of Rose and Ireland, lit an explosive device known as an M-80 and threw it out of the rear of the station wagon. It landed in a glass of beer held by Karen Evans. When it exploded, Karen Evans received extensive damage to her hand and a number of puncture wounds to her body from the shattered glass.

The Evanses are plaintiffs in a personal injury action brought against Kathy Rose, Mike Ehinger and Danny Ireland for Karen's personal injuries sustained as a result of the explosion. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, Inc., insures the Rose automobile and Farmers Insurance Company, Inc., insures an automobile owned by Mike Ehinger. Both policies provide coverage for bodily injury "arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use" of the insured vehicle.

The question before the trial court was whether the two policies provided coverage for Mike Ehinger, Danny Ireland and Kathy Rose, or any of them, with regard to claims made against them by the Evanses. The trial court determined that there was coverage because the automobile was being used as shelter, a reasonable incident of its use and one reasonably contemplated by the parties to the insurance contract.

The policy provision in question is mandated by the legislature. K.S.A.1980 Supp. 40-3107(b ). As an automobile liability coverage clause, it is to be interpreted broadly to afford the greatest possible protection to the insured. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 2 Kan.App.2d 580, 584 P.2d 1264 (1978). In the case before us, the trial court found the vehicle was being "used" within the meaning of the coverage clause because of its use as a shelter. But mere use of a vehicle, standing alone, is not sufficient to trigger coverage. Thus, even though the vehicle was being used within the meaning of the automobile liability policies, the question remains whether that use is so remote from the negligent act that it can be said there was no causal relationship between the use of the car and the injuries sustained.

Kansas has construed the word "use" in connection with automobile liability policies on three occasions: Alliance Mutual Casualty Co. v. Boston Insurance Co., 196 Kan. 323, 411 P.2d 616 (1966); Esfeld Trucking, Inc. v. Metropolitan Insurance Co., 193 Kan. 7, 392 P.2d 107 (1964); United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 2 Kan.App.2d 580, 584 P.2d 1264. None of these cases is exactly in point, but language found in Esfeld indicates Kansas follows the majority rule that there must be some causal connection between the use of the insured vehicle and the injury. In Esfeld, the court stated:

"In determining the coverage of a policy such as our present one a court must consider whether the injury sustained was a natural and reasonable incident or consequence of the use of the vehicle involved for the purposes shown by the declarations of the policy though not foreseen or expected." 193 Kan. at 11, 392 P.2d 107.

The general rule in other jurisdictions is that "arising out of the use" of a vehicle requires the finding of some causal connection or relation between the use of the vehicle and the injury. E.g., Richland Knox Mutual Insurance Company v. Kallen, 376...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Wausau Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Howser
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • January 8, 1990
    ...601, 491 P.2d 455 (banc 1971), vacating opinion reported in 13 Ariz.App. 298, 475 P.2d 957 (1970). 11 Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co., Inc. v. Evans, 7 Kan.App.2d 60, 637 P.2d 491 (1981); Speziale v. Kohnke, 194 So.2d 485 (La.App.1967); Richland Knox Mutual Ins. Co. v. Kallen, 376 F.2d 360 (6th......
  • Taylor v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 92-115
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • July 16, 1993
    ...injury is in any way connected with the normal or expected uses, or incidents of use, of an automobile. 2 Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Evans, 7 Kan.App.2d 60, 637 P.2d 491 (1981). Thus, an accident caused by the emptying of the contents of an automobile's ashtray out of the car window might......
  • Everest Indem. Ins. Co. v. Jake's Fireworks, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Kansas
    • November 19, 2020
    ...(1995).140 Dillon Cos., Inc. v. Royal Indem. Co. , 369 F. Supp. 2d 1277, 1288 (D. Kan. 2005) (citing Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Evans , 7 Kan.App.2d 60, 637 P.2d 491, 494 (1981) ).141 Id. (citation omitted).142 Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Wendt , 205 F.3d 1258, 1262 (11th Cir. 2000) (citing ......
  • Garrison v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 71055
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • April 21, 1995
    ...768 P.2d 320 (1989); DiBassie v. American Standard Ins. Co. of Wisconsin, 8 Kan.App.2d 515, 520, 661 P.2d 812 (1983). Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Evans, 7 Kan.App.2d 60, Syl. p 2, 637 P.2d 491 (1981), succinctly stated what is required for an accident to arise out of the use of a "In deter......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Uninsured Underinsured Motorist Insurance a Sleeping Giant
    • United States
    • Kansas Bar Association KBA Bar Journal No. 63-05, May 1994
    • Invalid date
    ...have held-a firecracker thrown from a parked vehicle did not arise out of the use of the vehicle (Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Evans, 7 Kan.App.2d 60, 637 P.2d 491 (1981); a sexual assault occurring in a motor vehicle was ruled not to have a causal relationship to use of the vehicle (Allied......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT