Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance v. Evans
637 P.2d 491, 1981 Kan. App. LEXIS 385, 7 Kan. App. 2d 60 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For an injury to be covered by an automobile liability policy's 'arising out of the use' clause, there must be a causal connection between the use of the vehicle and the injury; the vehicle's role as the mere location of the injury-causing act is insufficient.
Facts:
- During a going-away party for David and Karen Evans in an open field, it began to rain.
- To provide shelter, Damon Rose parked his station wagon so that its rear-facing back seat faced a bonfire, and he left the tailgate open.
- Mike Ehinger, Kathy Rose, and Danny Ireland sat in the rear-facing back seat of the parked station wagon.
- Ehinger allegedly lit an M-80 firecracker with the help of Rose and Ireland and threw it out of the rear of the vehicle.
- The firecracker landed in a glass of beer held by Karen Evans, where it exploded.
- The explosion caused extensive damage to Karen Evans's hand and other puncture wounds from shattered glass.
Procedural Posture:
- David and Karen Evans filed a personal injury lawsuit in a trial court against Kathy Rose, Mike Ehinger, and Danny Ireland.
- The defendants' insurance carriers, Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, Inc., and Farmers Insurance Company, Inc., disputed whether their policies covered the incident.
- The trial court granted summary judgment against the insurance carriers, ruling that the policies did provide coverage.
- The two insurance carriers (appellants) appealed the trial court's order to the intermediate appellate court.
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 firecracker thrown from a parked vehicle, which was being used for shelter from the rain, 'arise out of the use' of that vehicle for purposes of an automobile liability insurance policy?
Opinions:
Majority - Abbott, J.
No. An injury does not arise out of the use of a vehicle if there is no causal relationship between the vehicle's use and the injury. Here, the use of the vehicle as a shelter was too remote from the negligent act of throwing a firecracker to establish the necessary causal connection for coverage. The court reasoned that the general rule requires a causal link between the vehicle's use and the injury, beyond the vehicle simply being the location of the event. The act of throwing an explosive device is not a normal use of a vehicle and is not identifiable with its ownership, maintenance, or use. The court concluded that the vehicle's role as a shelter did not causally contribute to the injuries any more than if someone had used the car to block the wind while lighting the device outside of it.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the 'arising out of the use' clause in Kansas automobile insurance policies, aligning the state with the majority rule that requires a significant causal connection. The ruling prevents the expansion of auto insurance into a form of general liability coverage for any tortious act that happens to occur within or near a vehicle. It establishes that the vehicle must be more than the mere situs of the injury; its use must be a contributing factor. Future cases involving injuries caused by acts independent of a vehicle's normal function will likely find no coverage under this precedent.
