 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Allstate Insurance Co. v. Grimes11/8/2004
e claim asserted against the parents in Jordan pertained to their alleged failure to supervise their son prior to the shooting. There was no allegation of a subsequent and separate negligent act or omission against the parents in Jordan.
The question then is whether the alleged act of failing to render aid after the shooting is or is not a separate negligent act for which Ms. Yarbrough may be awarded damages, assuming she can prove that she suffered injuries from the alleged acts or omissions of the Grimes.
Allstate argues that since Wesley Grimes' intentional and criminal act of shooting Ms. Yarbrough is excluded, then any subsequent acts or omissions are also excluded even if the subsequent act or omission is attributed to insured persons other than the insured who acted intentionally or criminally. In essence, Allstate is asserting that the intentional and criminal act of Wesley Grimes constitutes a line of demarcation after which any and all subsequent acts and omissions are also excluded. We find this argument to be without merit because the policy exclusion does not automatically exclude coverage for other insured persons who are alleged to have subsequently and separately acted in a negligent manner or to have negligently failed to act. Our finding is based on Allstate v. Watts, 811 S.W.2d 883 (Tenn. 1991), and Planet Rock, Inc. v. Regis Insurance Company, 6 S.W.3d 484 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). See also Almany v. Nationwide Insurance Company, 1987 WL 4745 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987).
The insured in Allstate v. Watts, Mr. Crafton, was helping Mr. Cole replace the brake shoes on Cole's truck. The two were working on the truck in Crafton's garage when a third gentleman, Mr. Watts, dropped in for a visit. Cole and Crafton told Watts that they were having difficulty removing "frozen" lug nuts on the truck. Watts offered to help remove the lug nuts and chose to use a torch to "cut" the lug bolts. Before using the torch, Watts asked Crafton if any flammable materials were located in the garage. Crafton replied that there were none. As Watts was cutting the lug bolts on the truck, sparks ignited a pan containing a flammable liquid under the truck. In an attempt to carry the ignited pan outside, Crafton dropped and then kicked the pan causing the ignited liquid to splash upon and burn Watts.
Watts sued Crafton alleging that Crafton was negligent for failing to correctly advise him of the presence of the flammable liquid and that Crafton was also negligent in picking up, dropping and then kicking the pan and its flaming contents onto Watts. Crafton asked his insurer, Allstate, to defend the claim. Allstate denied coverage and filed a declaratory judgment action arguing that Watts' injuries arose out of the maintenance of a vehicle and were thus excluded under the policy. The policy provided: "We do not cover bodily injury or property damage arising out of the ownership, maintenance, use, occupancy . . . loading or unloading of any motorized land vehicle or trailer." Watts, 811 S.W.2d at 884-885. Crafton argued that two separate and independent events were responsible for the injury: one, the use of the torch to perform maintenance on the vehicle - which is excluded; and two, the negligent act of failing to warn in conjunction with the mishandling of the ignited pan - which is not excluded. Watts, 811 S.W.2d at 885-886. Allstate argued that the acts of maintenance of the truck, specifically cutting the bolts - an excluded risk - set in motion the chain of events that caused Watts' injuries. Watts, 811 S.W.2d at 885. Allstate argued that the phrase "arising out of" encompassed any casual relationship such that even a seemingly unrelated cause of injury could exclude coverage so long as
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|