Kinzy v. Farmers Ins. Exchange
| Citation | 667 S.E.2d 673,293 Ga. App. 509 |
| Decision Date | 10 September 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. A08A1148.,A08A1148. |
| Parties | KINZY v. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE. |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
Vincent R. Lauria, for appellant.
Downey & Cleveland, Russell B. Davis, Marietta, Hedrick & Edenfield, Evan R. Mermelstein, Atlanta, for appellee.
Lester Kinzy sought coverage from his uninsured/underinsured motorist ("UM") carrier, Farmers Insurance Exchange ("Farmers"), for injuries suffered in a "road rage" altercation with another motorist. The trial court granted summary judgment to Farmers, and Kinzy appeals. For reasons that follow, we affirm.
Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issues of material fact remain and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56(c). The underlying facts in this case are undisputed. On March 19, 2004, Kinzy left home in his car to go shopping. A short distance from his house, a pickup truck pulled behind him, and the driver, Michael Drake, began continuously blowing the vehicle's horn. Intent on staying within the speed limit, Kinzy motioned for the truck to go around him. After the truck passed, however, it braked suddenly in front of Kinzy's vehicle, forcing Kinzy to maneuver over the street curb and into a neighbor's yard to avoid a collision.
Kinzy reentered the roadway and caught up with the truck, which had stopped at a stop sign. He then left his car and approached the other driver to find out "what in the hell was wrong with him." Drake also exited his truck, and they met between the vehicles. When Kinzy asked Drake about the incident, Drake punched him, rendering him unconscious. Kinzy, who was 74 years old at the time, was taken by ambulance to the hospital.
Claiming that he suffered significant, continuing injuries during the physical altercation, Kinzy sued Drake. He learned, however, that Drake's insurance policy had a $25,000 coverage limit. Believing that his damages exceeded this amount, Kinzy served the complaint on Farmers, his UM carrier. He also settled his claim with Drake's insurer for the $25,000 policy limit.
Farmers subsequently moved for summary judgment on several grounds, including that Kinzy's damages were not covered by the UM provision. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment to Farmers. We find no error.
1. Personal injury claim. Pursuant to its UM coverage, Farmers was obligated to compensate Kinzy for damages he was legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle. To fall within the coverage, however, those damages had to, among other things, "arise out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the `uninsured motor vehicle.'"
In the automobile insurance context, the phrase "arising out of" has been interpreted broadly to encompass situations where "the injury originated from, had its origin in, grew out of, or flowed from the use of the vehicle." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Southeastern Fidelity Ins. Co. v. Stevens, 142 Ga.App. 562, 564(1), 236 S.E.2d 550 (1977). But this broad interpretation does not extend the contract language "to something distinctly remote." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Id. Ultimately, "Georgia law requires a causal connection between the use of the vehicle and the injury sustained [cits.]," USAA Property & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Wilbur, 207 Ga.App. 57, 59, 427 S.E.2d 49 (1993), and we must look for the parties' intent in construing the language of an insurance contract. See Atlanta Postal Credit Union v. Intl. Indem. Co., 228 Ga.App. 887, 889(1)(a), 494 S.E.2d 348 (1997).
Drake's manner of driving and vehicle use undoubtedly sparked his dispute with Kinzy. He did not, however, employ his vehicle during the physical assault. See Rustin v. State Farm etc., Ins. Co., 254 Ga. 494, 495(1), 330 S.E.2d 356 (1985) (). That assault — and Kinzy's injuries — resulted after both men voluntarily exited their vehicles and confronted each other.
Although Drake's driving may have provoked an argument — and Drake arrived at the site of the assault in his vehicle — his decision to leave his truck and attack Kinzy was independent of his use or ownership of the vehicle. Simply put, Kinzy's physical injuries were too remote from Drake's vehicle use, ownership, or maintenance to fall within the UM provision. See Rustin, supra, 254 Ga. at 495(1), 330 S.E.2d 356 (); Longabaugh v. State Farm etc., Ins. Co., 205 Ga.App. 854, 855(1), 424 S.E.2d 49 (1992) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial