Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Knight
Decision Date | 21 September 1977 |
Docket Number | No. 7621SC994,7621SC994 |
Citation | 34 N.C.App. 96,237 S.E.2d 341 |
Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. Rommie G. KNIGHT, Jr., by and through his guardian ad litem, Robert F. Johnson, Rommie G. Knight, Sr., Calvin Lee Love, Donna Burton Love, Gerald Glenn Burton, and Delores Burton Knight. |
J. Robert Elster and W. Thompson Comerford, Jr., Winston-Salem, for plaintiff-appellee.
H. Glenn Pettyjohn and Theodore M. Molitoris, Winston-Salem, for defendants-appellants.
Damages are sought by defendants for property damage to their vehicle which resulted from the alleged intentional ramming by the insured vehicle. Failure of the trial court to make findings of fact with respect to plaintiff's obligation to defend the claim for property damage caused by the intentional ramming of defendant's car by plaintiff's insured was error.
An automobile insurer in North Carolina is liable, within the maximum coverage required by the Financial Responsibility Act, for property damage caused by an insured who intentionally drives an automobile into plaintiff's property. In Insurance Company v. Roberts, 261 N.C. 285, 289, 134 S.E.2d 654, 658 (1964), a case where defendant deliberately drove an automobile across a sidewalk and into the victim, our Supreme Court said:
" '(I)t is apparently the more widely accepted view that an assault constitutes an "accident", and that injuries therefrom are "accidentally sustained", within the coverage of liability insurance policies.' " (Quoting 33 A.L.R.2d 1027, 1030; and citing 29A Am.Jur., Insurance § 1342.)
Under G.S. 20-279.15(3) coverage within the Financial Responsibility Act extends to property damage as well as to personal damages occurring to the victim of an accident. Plaintiff is therefore required to compensate defendant for any property damage arising out of the intentional ramming of defendant's automobile by plaintiff's insured.
The policy of automobile liability insurance involved in this case provides that Nationwide:
Defendants contend that the gunshot from the chasing automobile which injured the minor passenger of the fleeing automobile was an accident for which plaintiff insurance company should be liable. In support of this position that the gunshot wound resulted from an accident arising out of the "ownership, maintenance and use" of an automobile, defendants cite authority from other jurisdictions.
In Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York v. Lott, 273 F.2d 500 (Fifth Cir. 1960), an accident within coverage of the policy was found where a passenger was killed when the insured driver, while attempting to shoot a deer, rested his rifle on top of the parked automobile and fired. The muzzle of the rifle did not clear the top of the car and the bullet entered through the top of the car and downward into the plaintiff.
Defendants also present this case as analogous to cases which have held the insurer liable for injuries sustained by projectiles being thrown from automobiles. In Home Indemnity Company v. Lively, 353 F.Supp. 1191 (W.D.Okl.1972), for example, it was held that a pop bottle being tossed from an automobile constituted an accident arising out of the use of an automobile. See also Wyoming Farm Bur. M. Ins. Co. v. State Farm M. Auto. Ins. Co., 467 F.2d 990 (Tenth Cir. 1972).
On the other hand, plaintiff cites Vanguard Insurance Company v. Cantrell (Cantrell v. Allstate Insurance Company ), 18 Ariz.App. 486, 503 P.2d 962 (1973), where the insured fired a gun from his automobile and struck plaintiff inside a liquor store. The Arizona Court noted that the phrase "arising out of" does import a concept of causation, and held that plaintiff's injuries did not arise out of the use of a vehicle.
In the recent case of Insurance Co. v. Walker, 33 N.C.App. 15, 234 S.E.2d 206 (1977), this Court held that where the insured had permanently mounted a gun rack to the cab of his truck, and had frequently used the truck to transport rifles on hunting trips, the transportation of guns was one of the uses to which the truck had been put so that an accidental discharge of a gun on the rack was an accident arising out of the use of the truck. The Walker case is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wausau Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Howser
...448 N.E.2d 591 (1983); Florida Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v. Shaffer, 391 So.2d 216 (Fla.App. 4th Dist.1980); Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. Knight, 34 N.C. App. 96, 237 S.E.2d 341 (1977), cert. den., 293 N.C. 589, 239 S.E.2d 263 (1977); and Ford v. Monroe, 559 S.W.2d 759 (Mo.App.1977). Cases reac......
-
Willard v. Kelley, 69347
...and murder of insured who was abducted in his vehicle and driven to a deserted area where he was killed); Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Knight, 34 N.C.App. 96, 237 S.E.2d 341 (1977) (automobile liability policy did not cover an intentional shooting perpetrated by a person in a moving vehicle ......
-
Taylor v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 92-115
...a gun is an act unrelated to use of a motor vehicle; it in no way depends on or involves a motor vehicle. See Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Knight, 34 N.C.App. 96, 237 S.E.2d 341, rev. denied, 293 N.C. 589, 239 S.E.2d 263 (1977). The fact that the location of the shooter is a motor vehicle do......
-
St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Duke University
...Casualty Ins. Co., 127 Conn. 533, 18 A.2d 357 (1941); Caspersen v. Webber, 298 Minn. 93, 213 N.W.2d 327 (1973); Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Knight, 34 N.C.App. 96, 237 S.E.2d 341, disc. rev. denied, 293 N.C. 589, 239 S.E.2d 263 7 The Court would also note that a federal court sitting in div......
-
The Wacky World of Collision and Comprehensive Coverages: Intentional Injury and Illegal Activity Exclusions
...805 (Mass. App. Ct. 1984); Hartford Accident and Indem. Co. v. Wolbarst, 57 A.2d 151 (N.H. 1948); Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Knight, 237 S.E.2d 341 (N.C. Ct. App. 1977); South Carolina Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mumford, 382 S.E.2d 11 (S.C. Ct. App. 1989); Dotts v. Taressa J.A., 390 S.E.......