Heritage Mut. Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 94-3539
| Decision Date | 03 July 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-3539,94-3539 |
| Citation | 657 So.2d 925 |
| Parties | 20 Fla. L. Weekly D1571 HERITAGE MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., a corporation, Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation; First Baptist Church of Oceanway, an unincorporated association; William N. Brown and Marie Brown, his wife, individually and as parents and natural guardians of William Michael Brown, a minor, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
David M. Wiesenfeld of Dawson, Galant, Sulik & Wiesenfeld, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Jack W. Shaw, Jr., J. Stephen O'Hara, Jr., and James F. Waters of Osborne, McNatt, Shaw, O'Hara, Brown & Obringer, P.A., Jacksonville, for appellee State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
Appellant (Heritage) seeks review of an adverse summary judgment entered in a declaratory judgment action brought to determine whether it or appellee State Farm had primary coverage for injuries received by a child while a passenger in a van owned by their insured, appellee First Baptist Church of Oceanway. We are persuaded that the injuries resulted from an accident "arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of" the van and that, therefore, State Farm's coverage is primary. Accordingly, we reverse.
The salient facts are not in dispute. Approximately a dozen children had been transported in a van owned by First Baptist to a skating rink. On the return trip, some of the children (who were not wearing available seat belts) began to engage in horseplay, which included ice throwing and climbing over seats. During this horseplay, one of the children, William Brown, was seriously injured when another child somehow hit him in the head. At the time of the incident, Heritage had in force a commercial general liability policy, and State Farm had in force an automobile liability policy, both of which named First Baptist as the insured.
In its complaint, Heritage alleged that the child's injuries had "arise[n] out of the 'ownership, maintenance, or use' of the van" and that, therefore, the coverage afforded to First Baptist by State Farm's automobile liability policy was primary. State Farm filed an answer and a counterclaim, in which it denied that the coverage afforded by its automobile liability policy was primary; and requested a declaratory judgment that the child's injuries "did not arise out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of an insured vehicle" and that, therefore, its automobile liability policy afforded no coverage. Both Heritage and State Farm eventually sought summary judgment. The trial court denied Heritage's motion, granted State Farm's motion, and entered judgment accordingly.
On appeal, the parties argue that the outcome hinges on the meaning of the language, found in most automobile liability policies, which provides that the insurer will pay damages for which an insured becomes liable on account of bodily injury resulting from an accident "arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of" an insured vehicle. State Farm also makes a secondary argument that the scope of coverage afforded by its policy is narrower than that afforded by policies employing such language. In its policy, State Farm obligates itself to pay such damages when bodily injury is "caused by accident resulting from the ownership, maintenance or use of" an insured vehicle. We see no substantive distinction between the language of State Farm's policy and that generally employed. We note, in particular, that the words "arising" and "resulting" are generally regarded as synonyms. E.g., The Random House Dictionary of the English Language 113 (unabridged) (2d ed. 1987).
Florida cases addressing the extent of coverage...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taurus Holdings v. U.S. Fidelity
...between the conduct (or, in this case, the product) and the injury. It requires "some causal connection, or relationship." Heritage Mut. Ins. Co., 657 So.2d at 927. But it does not require proximate cause. Race, 542 So.2d at The provision at issue excludes coverage for "all bodily injury an......
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Safer
...1101 (Fla.2001); Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 279 F.Supp.2d 1281, 1284 (S.D.Fla.2003); Heritage Mut. Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 657 So.2d 925, 927 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), rev. denied, 665 So.2d 220 (Fla.1995); Carpenter v. Sapp, 569 So.2d 1291, 1293 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990......
-
Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Klub Kutter's Bar & Lounge, LLC
...'some causal connection, or relationship'" but does not require proximate cause. Id. (citing Heritage Mut. Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 657 So. 2d 925, 927 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) and Race v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 542 So. 2d 347, 348 (Fla. 1989)). However, when applying ......
-
Laboss Transp. Servs., Inc. v. Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y.
...but also injuries or damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured." Id. In Heritage Mutual Insurance Co. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. , the court considered whether an insurer was liable for bodily injury "caused by accident resulting from the own......