Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Shumate, Civ.A.2:98-1206.

Citation63 F.Supp.2d 745
Decision Date09 September 1999
Docket NumberNo. Civ.A.2:98-1206.,Civ.A.2:98-1206.
PartiesNATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Todd Wilson SHUMATE, Defendant.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Southern District of West Virginia

Maria Marino Potter, McQueen, Harmon & Potter, L.C., Charleston, WV, for plaintiff.

Sprague W. Hazard, Charleston, WV, for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

HADEN, Chief Judge.

Pending are the parties' cross motions for summary judgment. The Court GRANTS the Plaintiff's motion and DENIES the Defendant's motion.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On January 27, 1999 Defendant Todd Shumate was driving a 1990 Nissan truck in Morgantown, West Virginia. Shumate's vehicle was struck by a 1985 Pontiac Firebird driven by Leroy D. Overton. After the collision, an altercation ensued, and Overton physically assaulted Shumate. Shumate suffered injuries from the physical assault, but suffered no injuries as a result of the collision.

Shumate was insured under a policy issued by Plaintiff Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company ("Nationwide") to Shumate's father. The policy provided uninsured motorist bodily injury coverage of $500,000 and contained the following provision:

We will pay compensatory damages, including derivative claims, which are due by law to you or a relative from the owner or driver of an uninsured motor vehicle because of bodily injury and/or property damage suffered by you or a relative. Damage must result from an accident arising out of the:

1. ownership;

2. maintenance; or

3. use;

of the uninsured motor vehicle.

(Stipulations of Fact at 5, ¶ 17.) Overton's Firebird was not insured. A claim was submitted to Nationwide on Shumate's behalf for the injuries suffered on January 27, 1996. Nationwide then filed this action seeking a declaratory judgment that it did not contract to cover Shumate's injuries. Conversely, Shumate asserts that his injuries are causally connected to the use of an uninsured motor vehicle, and he thus is entitled to recover.

II. DISCUSSION

"At bottom, the district court must determine whether the party opposing the motion for summary judgment has presented genuinely disputed facts which remain to be tried. If not, the district court may resolve the legal questions between the parties as a matter of law and enter judgment accordingly." Thompson Everett, Inc. v. National Cable Advertising, L.P., 57 F.3d 1317, 1323 (4th Cir.1995). The parties have stipulated to all material facts. Therefore, this case is ripe for summary disposition.

The parties agree that West Virginia law controls this issue. West Virginia requires a causal connection between an insured's injuries and the insured vehicle. See, e.g., Cleaver v. Big Arm Bar & Grill, Inc., 202 W.Va. 122, ___, 502 S.E.2d 438, 443 (1998) ("When ... the `use' of a vehicle is a question for insurance purposes due to the separation of an individual from a vehicle at the time of an accident, the court must determine whether there is a causal connection between the motor vehicle and the injury."). Such a causal connection must be "more than incidental, fortuitous, or but for. The injury must be foreseeably identifiable with the normal use of the vehicle." Baber v. Fortner, 186 W.Va. 413, 417, 412 S.E.2d 814, 818 (1991) (quoting Detroit Auto. Inter-Ins. Exch. v. Higginbotham, 95 Mich.App. 213, 290 N.W.2d 414, 419 (1980)).

In this case, the policy provides coverage for damages suffered from an accident arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of an uninsured motor vehicle. Shumate's injuries were the result of an intentional physical assault by an angry uninsured motorist. These injuries were not "foreseeably identifiable with the normal use of a vehicle." Baber, 186 W.Va. at 417, 412 S.E.2d at 818; see also Nationwide Mutual Ins....

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Keefer v. Ferrell
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • November 8, 2007
    ...than incidental, fortuitous, or but for.[']" See Baber v. Fortner [by Poe], 186 W.Va. 413, 417 (1991); Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Shumate, 63 F.Supp.2d 745[ (S.D.W.Va.1999)]. Essentially, the injury must be foreseeably identifiable with the normal use of the vehicle. The evidence be......
  • State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Buckingham
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Delaware
    • February 21, 2007
    ...and was not reasonably foreseeable by parties to the insurance contract as within the normal use of the vehicle.); Nationwide v. Shumate, 63 F.Supp.2d 745, 747 (S.D.W.Va.1999) (Injuries resulting from an intentional physical assault by an angry uninsured motorist did not arise out of the op......
  • Erie Ins. Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Jones, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:10-cv-00479
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
    • May 6, 2011
    ...material facts and all that remains is a legal dispute, the case is ripe for summary disposition. See Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Shumate, 63 F. Supp. 2d 745, 746 (S.D. W. Va. 1999).III. Discussion The court begins its analysis of an insurance coverage dispute with the terms of the insuranc......

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