Garrison v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 71055
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Kansas |
| Writing for the Court | SIX; LARSON; ROBERT H. MILLER |
| Citation | 258 Kan. 547,907 P.2d 891 |
| Parties | Tad GARRISON, Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant/Counterclaimant/Appellee, and Dairyland Insurance Company, Intervenor/Counterclaimant/Appellee, and Kurt Pfannenstiel, Counterclaimant/Defendant, Appellees. |
| Docket Number | No. 71055 |
| Decision Date | 08 December 1995 |
Page 891
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant/Counterclaimant/Appellee,
and
Dairyland Insurance Company, Intervenor/Counterclaimant/Appellee,
and
Kurt Pfannenstiel, Counterclaimant/Defendant, Appellees.
Page 892
Syllabus by the Court
1. Provisions in insurance policies required by the Kansas Automobile Injury Reparations Act, K.S.A. 40-3101 et seq., are to be construed liberally to achieve the legislature's purpose to provide a means of compensating persons promptly for accidental bodily injury arising out of the ownership, operation, or use of a motor vehicle.
2. For insurance coverage to exist for accidental bodily injury, there is no requirement that the vehicle be the proximate cause of the injury or physically contribute to the discharge of the gun where the minimal causal connection between the use of the vehicle and the injury is provided by the foreseeable and reasonable use of the vehicle for hunting.
3. We hold, under the facts of this case, that the injury sustained by the driver when a shotgun inside the car accidentally discharged while being removed from the car was a natural and reasonable incident arising out of the use of the car for hunting.
Larry D. Tittel, Ness City, argued the cause and was on the brief, for appellant.
James D. Oliver, of Foulston & Siefkin, L.L.P., Wichita, argued the cause, for appellees, and Stephen M. Kerwick, of the same firm, was on the brief, for appellee State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
Mary Giovanni, of Kahrs, Nelson, Fanning, Hite & Kellogg, Wichita appeared, and Arthur S. Chalmers, of the same firm, was on the brief, for appellee Dairyland Ins. Co.
SIX, Justice:
This is a first-impression automobile insurance coverage case arising from a hunting accident. A shotgun accidentally discharged, injuring Tad Garrison, plaintiff, while Kurt Pfannenstiel, defendant, removed it from Garrison's car. Garrison's car was insured by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm). Pfannenstiel's car was insured by Dairyland Insurance Company (Dairyland).
The district court held that the State Farm and Dairyland policies did not provide liability coverage; the Court of Appeals reversed the district court. The State Farm policy also provided personal injury protection (PIP) benefits for the injuries to Garrison. Garrison v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 20 Kan.App.2d 918, 894 P.2d 226 (1995).
We granted State Farm's and Dairyland's petitions for review. Our jurisdiction is under K.S.A. 20-3018(b). Dairyland adopts State Farm's arguments.
Page 893
THE QUESTION
Do injuries caused by an unexplained accidental discharge of a shotgun occurring while the gun is being removed from a car during a hunting trip arise out of or result from the use of the car?
The answer is "yes." We affirm the Court of Appeals.
The facts and procedural history are stated in the Court of Appeals opinion:
"Garrison was seriously injured when a shotgun discharged as Kurt Pfannenstiel removed the gun from Garrison's car during a hunting trip. Garrison sued Pfannenstiel for negligence and Garrison's automobile insurer, State Farm, for personal injury protection (PIP) benefits.
"State Farm defended on the basis that the accident did not arise out of the ownership, use, or maintenance of a motor vehicle and counterclaimed for a declaration that the liability portion of Garrison's policy did not afford coverage to Pfannenstiel for Garrison's negligence claim against him. Dairyland, Pfannenstiel's automobile insurance carrier, intervened to seek a ruling that no liability coverage existed under the policy it had issued.
"The case was submitted on an agreed record consisting of the depositions of Garrison and Pfannenstiel plus copies of the respective insurance policies. After reviewing briefs and hearing arguments, the trial court ruled the accident did not arise out of the use of a vehicle and entered judgment in favor of both insurance carriers.
"This unfortunate accident occurred in September 1992, when Garrison and Pfannenstiel went dove hunting in rural Ness County. Garrison drove his State Farm insured car during the entire hunting excursion.
"The two men stopped on several occasions to shoot birds. Each time they entered and left the car they stowed their guns between the front seats along the console with the barrels pointing toward the floorboard.
"After several stops they saw some birds and decided that Pfannenstiel would get out of the car and Garrison would then drive on to the far end of a line of trees and hunt there. Garrison slowed the car; as it approached or came to a stop and Pfannenstiel was getting out of the car, Pfannenstiel's shotgun discharged, striking Garrison in the leg and causing a significant injury. Neither party knew what caused the shotgun to fire. Pfannenstiel did not remember if the shotgun came in contact with any part of the car as it fired, although part of Garrison's injury was caused by the knob of a radio which the blast forced through his leg. Neither Garrison nor Pfannenstiel knows if the safety had been engaged before Pfannenstiel picked up the gun.
"There are essentially three portions of the insurance policies which are in issue. As to Garrison's PIP claim, State Farm contested coverage under the following provision:
'SECTION II--NO FAULT--COVERAGE P
'What We Pay
'We will pay in accordance with the No-Fault Act for bodily injury to an insured, caused by accident resulting from the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle.'
"As to State Farm's counterclaim that liability coverage did not apply to Garrison's tort claim against Pfannenstiel, the following provisions are involved:
'SECTION I--LIABILITY--COVERAGE A
'We will:
'1. pay damages which an insured becomes legally liable to pay because of ... bodily injury to others, and damage to or destruction of property ... caused by accident resulting from the ownership, maintenance or use of your car; and
'2. defend any suit against an insured for such damages....
....
'Who Is an Insured
Page 894
'When we refer to your car ... insured means:
....
'4. any other person while using such a car if its use is within the scope of the express or implied consent of you or your spouse.'
"The pertinent language of the Dairyland policy provides:
'We promise to pay damages for bodily injury or property damage for which the law holds you responsible because of a car accident involving a car we insure.'
'["Car accident" is defined as] "an unexpected and unintended event that causes injury or property damage and arises out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a car or other motor vehicle." ' 20 Kan.App.2d at 919-21, 894 P.2d 226.
Standard of Review
The Court of Appeals correctly stated the standard of review:
"The issue we consider does not hinge on any factual determination but rather on the interpretation of what the policy requires for an accident to arise out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle. This is a legal question upon which our review is unlimited." 20 Kan.App.2d at 922, 894 P.2d 226.
The facts were not controverted, therefore the construction and effect of this contract of insurance is a matter of law to be determined by an appellate court. See 20 Kan.App.2d at 922, 894 P.2d 226. Our review must also consider the statute under which the insurance policy was issued: the Kansas Automobile Injury Reparations Act (KAIRA), K.S.A. 40-3101 et seq. KAIRA requires an automobile owner to obtain liability insurance that provides "personal injury protection benefits to the named insured ... for loss sustained ... as a result of injury" including "bodily harm ... resulting from an accident arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle." K.S.A.1994 Supp. 40-3104(a), K.S.A. 40-3107(f), and K.S.A.1994 Supp. 40-3103(i). K.S.A. 40-3107(b) requires that every motor vehicle liability insurance policy shall
"insure the person named and any other person, as insured, using any such vehicle with the expressed or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mid-Century Ins. Co. TX v. Lindsey, MID-CENTURY
...gunshot injury received from a drive-by shooting did not arise out of the use of a vehicle); Garrison v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 907 P.2d 891, 895 (Kan. 1995) (holding that there is no requirement that the vehicle physically contribute to the discharge of a gun while it is being rem......
-
Cady v. Schroll, No. 103,499.
...Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 20 Kan.App.2d 918, 923, 894 P.2d 226 (quoting Cameron Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ward, 599 S.W.2d 13, 15 [Mo.App.1980] ),aff'd258 Kan. 547, 907 P.2d 891 (1995). In Garrison, the issue was whether an injury arose out of the use of an automobile when a hunter accidentally discharge......
-
State Bd. of Nursing v. Ruebke, No. 73851
...exempted from the healing arts act is a legal question over which our review is unlimited. See Garrison v. State Farm Mut. Auto Co. Inc., 258 Kan. 547, 550, 907 P.2d 891 (1995). This court discussed K.S.A. 65-2872(g) briefly in State, ex rel. Londerholm v. Doolin & Shaw, 209 Kan. 244, 2......
-
United Services Auto. Ass'n v. Morgan, No. 76357
...from any coverage or obligation under the homeowner's policy. In its decision, it relied on Garrison v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 258 Kan. 547, 907 P.2d 891 (1995). It was the opinion of the trial court that the automobile was causally connected to Vetter's "The opportunity to fr......
-
Mid-Century Ins. Co. TX v. Lindsey, MID-CENTURY
...gunshot injury received from a drive-by shooting did not arise out of the use of a vehicle); Garrison v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 907 P.2d 891, 895 (Kan. 1995) (holding that there is no requirement that the vehicle physically contribute to the discharge of a gun while it is being rem......
-
Cady v. Schroll, No. 103,499.
...Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 20 Kan.App.2d 918, 923, 894 P.2d 226 (quoting Cameron Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ward, 599 S.W.2d 13, 15 [Mo.App.1980] ),aff'd258 Kan. 547, 907 P.2d 891 (1995). In Garrison, the issue was whether an injury arose out of the use of an automobile when a hunter accidentally discharge......
-
State Bd. of Nursing v. Ruebke, No. 73851
...exempted from the healing arts act is a legal question over which our review is unlimited. See Garrison v. State Farm Mut. Auto Co. Inc., 258 Kan. 547, 550, 907 P.2d 891 (1995). This court discussed K.S.A. 65-2872(g) briefly in State, ex rel. Londerholm v. Doolin & Shaw, 209 Kan. 244, 2......
-
United Services Auto. Ass'n v. Morgan, No. 76357
...from any coverage or obligation under the homeowner's policy. In its decision, it relied on Garrison v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 258 Kan. 547, 907 P.2d 891 (1995). It was the opinion of the trial court that the automobile was causally connected to Vetter's "The opportunity to fr......