American States Ins. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co.
11 Fla. L. Weekly 656, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6825, 484 So. 2d 1363 (1986)
Rule of Law:
An injury arises 'out of the use, operation or maintenance' of a motor vehicle for insurance coverage purposes only if there is a sufficient nexus between the vehicle and the injury, meaning the vehicle is more than merely the situs of the injury and its use is a contributing cause or reason for the incident.
Facts:
- William C. Connor drove his mother's pickup truck to a store.
- William J. Sullivan was a passenger in the truck with William Connor.
- William Connor's pit bull dog, Lila, was in the back of the pickup, which was equipped with a topper and rear window, accompanying them for the ride.
- Connor stopped the truck when they reached the store.
- Both Connor and Sullivan exited the truck.
- As William J. Sullivan passed the open rear window of the truck, Lila bit him, causing serious injury.
Procedural Posture:
- William J. Sullivan made a claim for his injuries against June V. Connor, the owner of the pickup truck.
- June V. Connor referred the claim to American States Insurance Company, her homeowner's insurance carrier.
- American States Insurance Company settled the claim with Sullivan.
- American States Insurance Company took an assignment of June V. Connor's rights.
- American States Insurance Company filed an action for reimbursement against Allstate Insurance Company, June V. Connor's automobile insurance carrier.
- The case was tried before the trial court on stipulated facts.
- The trial court held that the incident did not arise 'out of the ownership, maintenance or use' of the motor vehicle.
- American States Insurance Company (appellant) appealed the trial court's decision to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District, with Allstate Insurance Company as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an injury caused by a dog, which was merely a passenger in the back of a pickup truck and bites an individual exiting the truck, arise 'out of the use, operation or maintenance' of the truck for purposes of automobile insurance coverage?
Opinions:
Majority - Orfinger
No, an injury caused by a dog merely riding in the back of a pickup truck does not arise 'out of the use, operation or maintenance' of the truck when the vehicle is simply the location of the injury. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, reasoning that for an injury to arise out of the use of a motor vehicle, there must be a 'nexus' or sufficient connection between the vehicle and the injury, where the vehicle is more than just the 'situs' (location) of an injury that could have happened anywhere. The court distinguished this case from others like Government Employees Insurance Company v. Novak where the vehicle's use was the reason for an attack, or National Indemnity Company v. Corbo where the vehicle was specifically used to transport a guard dog, thus establishing a direct nexus. In this case, the dog was merely 'along for the ride,' and the truck's purpose was to go to the store, not for the dog's transportation or any specific use related to the dog that caused the injury. Therefore, while the accident occurred at the vehicle, it did not arise out of the use of the vehicle.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the interpretation of the common insurance policy phrase 'arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use' of a motor vehicle, particularly when animals are involved. It reinforces the 'nexus' requirement, emphasizing that the vehicle's role must be more than a passive location for the injury to be covered by automobile insurance. Future cases will likely use this precedent to distinguish between injuries incidentally occurring near or in a vehicle and those causally linked to its operational use, potentially narrowing the scope of auto insurance coverage for incidental injuries.
