SUNSHINE STATE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Jones
2012 WL 126516, 77 So. 3d 254, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 452 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A passenger's act of interfering with a driver as a form of horseplay, such as grabbing the steering wheel to annoy the driver, does not constitute "use" of a motor vehicle for the purposes of an automobile insurance policy's coverage or a homeowner's policy's motor vehicle exclusion.
Facts:
- Carley Moore was driving her parents' Toyota Corolla with her boyfriend, Nicho Watson, in the front passenger seat and two other teenagers in the back.
- During the drive, Watson repeatedly grabbed the steering wheel and beeped the horn to annoy Moore.
- Moore asked Watson to stop, but he persisted, grabbing the wheel more than ten times.
- While Watson's actions did not directly cause the car to swerve, Moore's attempts to swat his hand away resulted in the car swerving.
- As Moore was driving on an exit ramp, Watson grabbed the wheel again.
- When Moore tried to push Watson away, she lost control of the vehicle, and its left side crashed into a concrete wall, injuring the backseat passengers.
- Watson was an insured under his parents' homeowner's policy issued by Sunshine State Insurance Co. and an automobile policy issued by Geico General Insurance Co.
Procedural Posture:
- The injured backseat passengers, through their parents, filed a negligence lawsuit against driver Carley Moore and passenger Nicho Watson in a Florida trial court.
- Moore settled the claims brought against her, leaving Watson as the sole remaining defendant in that suit.
- Sunshine State Insurance Co. (Watson's homeowner's insurer) filed a separate declaratory judgment action in the trial court against Geico General Insurance Co. (Watson's auto insurer).
- Sunshine State sought a court order declaring it had no duty to defend or indemnify Watson and that this duty fell to Geico.
- Sunshine State and Geico filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Geico, ruling that Watson's actions did not constitute "use" of the vehicle and thus Sunshine State's homeowner's policy must provide coverage.
- Sunshine State Insurance Co., as the losing party, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal.
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 a passenger's act of repeatedly grabbing a vehicle's steering wheel as horseplay, which distracts the driver and contributes to an accident, constitute "use" of a motor vehicle under the terms of an automobile insurance policy?
Opinions:
Majority - Gross, J.
No. A passenger's act of grabbing the steering wheel as horseplay is not a "use" of the vehicle under an automobile insurance policy. The term "use" requires an activity involved in utilizing the vehicle in the manner intended or contemplated by the insured, which does not include teenage horseplay. Watson's actions were intended to annoy the driver, not to exert control over the car's operation; the crash was a result of the driver's reaction to the interference. Citing West American Insurance Co. v. Silverman, the court found that interfering with the driver's operation is distinct from using the automobile oneself. Furthermore, even if it were considered use, the Geico policy for a non-owned auto required the owner's permission, which Watson's horseplay clearly did not have.
Concurring - Conner, J.
The concurring opinion agrees with the majority's ultimate conclusion that the homeowner's policy applies, but for a different reason. While the concurring judge believes Watson's actions could be characterized as co-driving or using the vehicle by physically controlling the steering wheel, the Geico auto policy still would not provide coverage. The auto policy only covers use of a non-owned auto when that use is with the owner's permission. Watson's horseplay was not sanctioned by the vehicle's owners, so the permission requirement was not met, leaving the homeowner's policy responsible for coverage regardless of whether the actions constituted "use."
Analysis:
This case clarifies the distinction between general negligence occurring within a vehicle and the legal term of art "use" of a vehicle for insurance purposes. It establishes that a passenger's interference, when motivated by horseplay rather than an intent to control the vehicle's operation, falls outside the scope of standard auto liability coverage. The decision reinforces the principle that homeowner's and auto insurance policies are complementary, not overlapping, thereby preventing gaps in coverage. Future cases involving passenger conduct will likely analyze the passenger's intent to determine whether their actions constituted an attempt to operate the vehicle or were merely incidental negligence.
