Home Ins. Co. v. Towe, 24016
Decision Date | 19 October 1993 |
Docket Number | No. 24016,24016 |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | The HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, A Corporation, Petitioner, v. Brian Eugene TOWE, Jerry Edward Alexander, and William Wayne McClaskey, Defendants, of whom William Wayne McClaskey is Respondent. . Heard |
Dana C. Mitchell, III, and Jesse A. McCall, Jr., both of Mitchell, Bouton, Yokel, & McCall, Greenville, for petitioner.
Steven M. Krause, of Epps, Krause & Nicholson, Anderson, for respondent.
Robert L. Waldrep, Jr., Anderson, for defendant Jerry Edward Alexander.
R. Daniel Day, Seneca, for defendant Brian Eugene Towe.
We granted Home Insurance Company's (Home) petition for writ of certiorari to review Home Insurance Company v. Towe, --- S.C. ----, 425 S.E.2d 784 (Ct.App.1992). Home contends that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the injuries William McClaskey (McClaskey) received when struck by a bottle thrown from a passing car arose out of the "ownership, maintenance or use" of Brian Towe's (Towe) automobile. We disagree and affirm.
While riding in an automobile driven by Towe, Jerry Alexander (Alexander) threw a bottle from the moving vehicle at a road sign. Instead of striking the sign, the bottle shattered on the steering wheel of a tractor McClaskey was driving in the opposite direction, seriously injuring McClaskey and causing minor damage to the tractor. Thereafter, McClaskey filed suit against Towe and Alexander.
Home, Towe's insurer, brought this declaratory judgment action to determine whether McClaskey's injuries arose out of the "ownership, maintenance or use" of Towe's automobile. The trial judge found that McClaskey's injuries did not arise out of the use of Towe's automobile and McClaskey appealed. While McClaskey's appeal was pending, this Court held that for purposes of uninsured motorist coverage, an injury arises out of the use of an automobile if there is a causal connection between the vehicle and the injury and if no act of independent significance breaks the causal link. Wausau Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Howser, --- S.C. ----, 422 S.E.2d 106 (1992). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial judge's ruling, finding that under Wausau, McClaskey's injuries arose out of the use of Towe's vehicle.
Home first argues that Wausau applies only to intentionally inflicted injuries and therefore, the Court of Appeals erred in applying the Wausau test to the facts of this case. We disagree.
The test for determining whether an injury arose out of the use of a vehicle turns on the causal connection between the vehicle and the injury. Wausau at ----, 422 S.E.2d at 108. No distinction is made as to whether the injury resulted from a negligent, reckless, or intentional act. See Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Continental Ins. Co., 126 N.J.Super. 29, 312 A.2d 664 (Super.App.Div.1973), aff'd, 65 N.J. 152, 319 A.2d 732 (1974) ( ). We reject Home's claim that the Court of Appeals erred in applying Wausau to the facts of this case.
Home next argues that the Court of Appeals erred in finding that there is a causal connection between the automobile and McClaskey's injuries. We disagree.
The use of the automobile placed Alexander in the position to throw the bottle at the sign and the vehicle's speed contributed to the velocity of the bottle increasing the seriousness of McClaskey's injuries. Home, --- S.C. at ----, 425 S.E.2d at 786...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Peagler v. Usaa Ins. Co.
..."no distinction is made as to whether the injury resulted from a negligent, reckless, or intentional act." Home Ins. Co. v. Towe, 314 S.C. 105, 107, 441 S.E.2d 825, 827 (1994); Wright v. North Area Taxi, Inc., 337 S.C. 419, 424, 523 S.E.2d 472, 474 (Ct. App.1999). The three-part test in Ayt......
-
North Star Mut. Ins. Co. v. Peterson
... ... The hunting party then returned to Brad's home driving through fields and over country roads. The rifle remained in the vehicle ... [¶ 4.] The next morning, Brad, Shane and ... See Home Ins. Co. v ... 749 N.W.2d 534 ... Towe, 314 S.C. 105, 441 S.E.2d 825, 827 (1994); see also Chapman v. Allstate Ins. Co., 263 S.C. 565, 211 S.E.2d 876 (S.C. 1975). Most jurisdictions do ... ...
-
Progressive Direct Ins. Co. v. Groves
...Id. The court further noted that "only a motor vehicle could have provided the assailant a quick and successful escape." Id.Similarly, in Towe , our supreme court concluded that a vehicle was an active accessory to an assault. 314 S.C. at 107, 441 S.E.2d at 827. Towe was driving when his pa......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Goyeneche
...because the injuries did not arise out of "use" of officer's patrol car within meaning of auto policy); Home Ins. Co. v. Towe , 314 S.C. 105, 107–08, 441 S.E.2d 825, 827 (1994) (holding necessary causal connection existed between use of insured's vehicle and serious injuries sustained by tr......