 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Puckett v. Nationwide Fire Insurance Co.3/18/2005
xclusion provisions of the policy provide that "Coverage E -- Personal Liability... do not apply to bodily injury or property damage:... arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of...a motor vehicle owned or operated by, or rented or loaned to an insured." We believe that this exclusion provision is dispositive of the issue at hand.
The terms at issue have previously been interpreted in the context of automobile insurance coverage. In this regard, we believe that Insurance Co. of North America v. Royal Indem. Co., 429 F.2d 1014, 1017 (6th Cir. 1970) provides a correct statement of the interpretation of these terms. "The words 'arising out of * use' in an automobile liability insurance policy, are broad, general and comprehensive terms meaning 'originating from,' or 'having its origin in,' 'growing out of' or 'flowing from[.]' Id. at 1017 -1018 (citing Carter v. Bergeron, 102 N.H. 464, 160 A.2d 348 (1960); Schmidt v. Utilities Ins. Co., 353 Mo. 213, 182 S.W.2d 181 (1944)). All that is required to come within the meaning of the words 'arising out of the *use of the automobile' is a causal connection with the accident. Id. at 1018 (citing Richland Knox Mut. Ins. Co. v. Kallen, 376 F.2d 360 (6th Cir. 1967), Manufacturers Cas. Ins. Co. v. Goodville Mut. Cas. Co., 403 Pa. 603, 170 A.2d 571 (Pa. 1961); and 89 A.L.R.2d 150 (1963)).
Pursuant to the foregoing, we interpret the automobile exclusion as applying to the July 13, 1999, incident. Bryan suffered the bodily injury at issue (i.e., death due to hyperthermia) as a result of the high temperatures produced within the passenger compartment of the Murphys' motor vehicle. The expert testimony at the criminal trial established that those excessive temperatures were produced as a result of the physical properties of the vehicle. This establishes a causal relationship between the motor vehicle and Bryan's injury.
Further, Karen used the motor vehicle as transportation to reach the shopping center, and it was her intention to use the vehicle for transportation upon her departure from the location. In the meantime, Karen was "using" the motor vehicle as a location of repose for Bryan and Jason while she shopped. Hence, Bryan's injury had its origin in Karen's use of the vehicle the afternoon of July 13, 1999.
Within the ordinary meaning of the word, Karen was clearly "using" the vehicle at the time Bryan suffered his bodily injury . Moreover, because the physical properties of the vehicle resulted in the excessive temperatures, Bryan's bodily injury arose from the use of the vehicle.
In summary, there is a direct nexus between Bryan's bodily injury and Karen's use of the motor vehicle in which the injury occurred. As such, we interpret the July 13, 1999, incident as being specifically excluded under the Murphys' homeowner's policy.
Moreover, we believe this exclusion extends to the Pucketts' claim against George Murphy for failing to warn them about Karen's mental health disorders. With respect to this claim, the fact remains that the bodily injury arose from the use of a motor vehicle, and such occurrences are specifically excluded under the Murphys' homeowner's policy.
For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Fayette Circuit Court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
Page 1 2 3 Kentucky Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|