FORTUNE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
LAZARO FERREIRO, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that an injury caused by an assailant, even if inflicted by a weapon, can arise out of the use of a motor vehicle for the purposes of uninsured motorist coverage.
An insured passenger was shot by an assailant attempting to force the truck he was in off the road. The assailant was not apprehended, and the insured…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Insurance Law cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
Fortune Insurance Company appeals from a final summary judgment in favor of the insured in an action brought to compel arbitration on the uninsured motorist coverage portion of an automobile insurance policy. We affirm.
Appellee was a passenger in a truck owned by his employer when he was shot in the hand by the driver of a car which was apparently attempting to force the truck off the road. The assailant was not apprehended. Appellee thereafter brought a declaratory judgment action to compel arbitration of his uninsured motorist claim pursuant to Chapter 87, Florida Statutes (1983). Appellant defended on the premise that the incident was not the result of “an accident arising out of the use, maintenance or operation of a motor vehicle.” Both parties moved for summary judgment.
We find that our affirmance is compelled by the decision in Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Novak, 453 So. 2d 1116 (Fla.1984), in which the Florida Supreme Court found that personal injury protection benefits were available to an insured who was shot after refusing to give the assailant a ride. In so holding the court stated:
It is well settled that “arising out of” does not mean “proximately caused by,” but has a much broader meaning. All that is required is some nexus between the motor vehicle and the injury ... The clause, “arising out of the use of a motor vehicle,” is framed in such general, comprehensive terms in order to express the intent to effect broad coverage. Such terms should be construed liberally be cause their function is to extend coverage broadly.
Id. at 1119 (citations omitted). Appellee clearly would be eligible for uninsured motorist benefits if the assailant had succeeded in forcing his truck off the road, thereby injuring him. It would be anomalous indeed to find no coverage where the assailant effected appellee’s injury but with a different instrumentality, i.e., a gun.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Race, 508 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…company on the theory that Dunn’s injury had arisen out of the use of a motor vehicle. We agree with the analysis set forth by the Fleming court in concluding that the Novak nexus is also absent in the instant case. Cf. Fortune Ins. Co. v. Ferreiro, 458 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (claimant’s gunshot wound inflicted by automobile driver who attempted to force off road truck in which claimant was passenger was accident which fell within UM coverage); Halpin v. Hilderbrand, 493 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (…
-
Pena v. Allstate Ins. Co., 463 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…e intent to effect broad coverage, [citation omitted] Such terms should be construed liberally because their function is to extend coverage broadly, [citation omitted] [emphasis added] 453 So. 2d at 1119. See also Fortune Insurance Co. v. Ferreiro, 458 So. 2d 834 (Fla.3d DCA 1984). All that is required, [*1258] following Novak, is that “some nexus” exist between the motor vehicle and the injury.2 In Novak, the court found that a sufficient nexus existed because it was the assailant’s wish to obtain a ride i…1 / 2
-
Taylor v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 622 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…a. 3d DCA 1991), cited by the dissent. In that case, the accident occurred during the loading of a truck, a normal incident of the intended or expected use of the truck. . We note that similar reasoning appears in Fortune Insurance Co. v. Ferreiro, 458 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); however, Ferreiro was decided on the basis of a broad test for UM coverage subsequently rejected in Race v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 542 So. 2d 347, 351 (Fla.1989). . In finding insurance coverage, the Colorado Supr…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Novak, 453 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 1984)