Quarles v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 06 October 1988
• Docket Number: 88-82,Nos. 87-1670,s. 87-1670
• Citation: 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2276,533 So.2d 809
• Parties: 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2276 Robert QUARLES, et al., Appellants, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Appellees. . July Term 1988
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 809

533 So.2d 809

13 Fla. L. Weekly 2276

Robert QUARLES, et al., Appellants, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Appellees.

Nos. 87-1670, 88-82.

District Court of Appeal of Florida Fifth District.

July Term 1988

Oct. 6, 1988.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 15, 1988.

Charles Rand of Jacobs and Goodman, P.A., Altamonte Springs and Barbara Green, Miami, for appellants.

Donald L. O'Dell of Markel, McDonough & O'Neal, Orlando, for appellee, Georgia American Ins. Co.

Thomas G. Kane of Kane & Williams, Orlando, for appellee, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

DANIEL, Judge.

The Quarles, as personal representatives of the estate of their son Craig, appeal the dismissal with prejudice of their amended complaint against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Georgia American Insurance Company. ¹ The Quarles argue that the trial court erred in holding that the automobile insurance policies issued by State Farm and Georgia American did not provide coverage for the accident which resulted in their son's death. We agree and reverse.

The Quarles filed suit against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Georgia American Insurance Company, and State Automobile Mutual Company seeking a declaratory judgment under insurance policies issued by the companies. The Quarles alleged that their son was accidently shot and killed when he received a shotgun wound to his head. At the time of the accident Craig was standing next to a 1974 Ford pickup truck conversing with the vehicle's operator, Phil Riter, Jr. The truck was equipped with a permanently affixed gun rack attached to the interior of the passenger compartment. The Quarles alleged that Riter was attempting to unload a shotgun which was located in the gun rack within the vehicle when the shotgun, while still in the gun rack, discharged unexpectedly resulting in their son's fatal injury.

The Quarles sought a declaration that they were entitled to uninsured motorist's benefits and PIP benefits from State Farm, their own insurance carrier, because their son's death was caused by an accident arising out of the use, operation or maintenance of a motor vehicle. The Quarles also sought a declaration that the liability provisions of the automobile insurance policy issued to Riter by Georgia American and a homeowner's policy issued to Riter by State Automobile provided coverage for this accident. ² The Quarles' amended complaint against State Farm and Georgia American was ultimately dismissed on the basis that it failed to show a causal connection between the motor vehicle and the injury for purposes of automobile insurance.

The policy issued by State Farm provided PIP benefits "in accordance with the No-Fault Act for bodily injury to an insured caused by an accident resulting from the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle." The policy provided uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage for bodily injury "caused by accident arising out of the operation, maintenance or use of an uninsured motor vehicle." The policy issued by Georgia American to Riter paid damages for bodily injury for which any covered person became legally responsible because of an auto accident. The term "covered person" was defined as the insured or any family member for the ownership, maintenance or use of any auto or trailer.

The Quarles contend that the trial court erred in its determination that their amended complaint failed to establish a causal connection between the ownership, use or maintenance of the motor vehicle and the accident. Specifically, the Quarles point out that the pickup truck had a permanently attached gun rack which had been installed for the purpose of transporting firearms, the shotgun discharged while mounted in the gun rack, transportation of the gun rack was one of the truck's intended, regular uses and the truck was being used for that purpose at the time of the accident. The insurance companies contend that the trial court was correct in dismissing the Quarles' amended complaint because it is not enough that an automobile be the physical situs of the injury or that the injury occur incidentally to the use of an automobile and that for coverage to apply, there must be a showing that the automobile itself was used in some manner to cause or produce the injury. Here the insurance companies contend that the allegations in the amended complaint show that the pickup truck was not being used at the time of this incident for any purpose other than as a resting place for the shotgun.

This court has previously held that where a motor vehicle is merely the situs of an injury that could have happened anywhere, the injuries do not arise out of the "ownership, maintenance or use" of the motor vehicle. Fleming v. Hill, 501 So.2d 715 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); American States Insurance Company v. Allstate Insurance Company, 484 So.2d 1363 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Reynolds v. Allstate Insurance Company, 400 So.2d 496 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Other courts have also held that the mere fact that the insured vehicle is the situs of the injury is an insufficient nexus to allow for coverage. See, e.g., Doyle v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 464 So.2d 1277 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1985); Allstate Insurance Company v. Famigletti, 459 So.2d 1149 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Hutchins v. Mills, 363 So.2d 818 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Watson v. Watson, 326 So.2d 48 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976).

Cases in which insurance coverage has been found have involved more than the insured vehicle being the situs of the accident. For example, in Government Employees Insurance Company v. Novak, 453 So.2d 1116 (Fla.1984), the insured was in her car when she was approached by a stranger who asked her for a ride. She refused, the assailant shot her, pulled her from the car, got in it and drove away. The Florida Supreme Court noted that while the phrase "arising out of" should be read to affect broad coverage, a nexus between the motor vehicle and the injury is required. Since the obtaining of a ride or the possession of the insured motor vehicle was what motivated the attack, the court found the necessary nexus. See also Hernandez v. Protective Casualty Insurance Company, 473 So.2d 1241 (Fla.1985); National Indemnity Company v. Corbo, 248 So.2d 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971).

While these cases establish the general principle that there must be a causal connection or nexus between the motor vehicle and the injury for purposes of insurance coverage, they do not address the fact...