 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
County of Kaua v. Scottsdale Insurance Co.5/27/1999
se of action not related to use of the automobile." Id. at 340, 713 P.2d at 430 (internal quotation marks omitted). The HIG court rejected the defendant-insureds' arguments, holding that
"the conduct of [the defendant-insureds] relative to the fatal accident was separate "only in the fact that it preceded the collision." Safeco Insurance Co. v. Gilstrap, 141 Cal. App. 3d 524, 527, 190 Cal. Rptr. 425, 427 (1983). For it is clear "that negligent entrustment [of an automobile] is irrelevant unless the person to whom is entrusted acts in a negligent manner (creates an unreasonable risk) and in fact inflicts injury as the result of such conduct." Bankert v. Threshermen's Mutual Insurance Co., 110 Wis. 2d 469, 476, 329 N.W.2d 150, 153 (1983); Correira v. Liu, 28 Haw. 145, 148 (1924). Or as the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has put it, the "`negligent entrustment' [of an automobile] as a distinct and specific cause of action is not exclusive of, but, rather, is derived from the more general concepts of ownership, operation, and use of a motor vehicle." Barnstable County Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Lally, 374 Mass. 602, 605-06, 373 N.E.2d 966, 969 (1978)." Id. at 340-41, 713 P.2d at 430-31 (some brackets added and some in original) (footnote omitted).
In the present case, the ICA held that negligent supervision and negligent entrustment are distinct torts. ICA's majority opinion at 13-16. The ICA reasoned that, whereas negligent entrustment is, per se, derived from the use of a motor vehicle, negligent supervision is not necessarily so linked. However, "a number of courts construing claims of negligent supervision and negligent entrustment have held that the two are basically synonymous for [purposes] of [the automobile] exclusion [contained in an insurance policy]." Love ex rel. Smith v. McDonough, 758 F. Supp. 397, 402 (S.D. Miss.), aff'd, 947 F.2d 1486 (5th Cir. 1991) (citing Northern Ins. Co. of New York v. Elkstrom, 784 P.2d 320 (Colo. 1989), and Great Central Ins. Co. v. Roemmich, 291 N.W.2d 772 (S.D. 1980)). See also State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Estate of Evoniuk, 681 F. Supp. 662, 663 (N.D. Cal. 1988) (holding that "negligent supervision is inseparable from the use of the motor vehicle"); Lahey v. Benjou, 759 P.2d 855, 857 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988) (finding "no practical difference" between negligent supervision and negligent entrustment under similar circumstances); Taylor v. American Fire and Cas. Co., 925 P.2d 1279, 1282-83 (Utah Ct. App. 1996) (holding that negligent supervision is "inextricably intertwined with the motor vehicle" involved in the accident and collecting decisions from fourteen other jurisdictions reaching the same holding), cert. denied, 936 P.2d 407 (Utah 1997).
This court need not decide whether alleged negligent supervision is always linked to the use of an automobile when an automobile is involved in an accident. As discussed supra, the complaint in the underlying lawsuit alleged that the County's liability, if any, stemmed from Officer Abadilla's driving a patrol car belonging to the County. On these facts, the County's liability for negligent supervision, in the words of the HIG court, "is not exclusive of, but, rather[,] is derived from" Officer Abadilla's use of the vehicle. That being so, we hold that the County's liability, if any, "arises out of" the "use" of a motor vehicle and that the automobile exclusion applies. Accordingly, Scottsdale had no duty to indemnify the County of Kaua`i in the present case.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing analysis, we (1) reverse the ICA's majority opinion and (2) affirm the circuit court's summary judgment in favor of Scottsdale and against the respondents.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|