JOHN C. PARKER, APPELLANT,
v.
ATLAS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
Parker sought personal injury protection (PIP) benefits from his insurance company after being struck by a rock thrown through a parked car window while seated inside with his girlfriend. The court affirmed summary judgment for the insurer, holding that the mere fact that the injury occurred in a parked vehicle did not create the nexus between the vehicle's use and the injury required to trigger PIP coverage.
The court held that there was insufficient nexus between the vehicle's use and Parker's injuries. The automobile was merely the physical location where the injury occurred, and the injury was not related or incidental to the use of the vehicle, thus precluding PIP coverage.
[1] Personal injury protection benefits are not warranted when an injury is merely incidental to the use of a motor vehicle, rather than related to or arising from its use.
[2] An automobile is considered the physical situs of an injury, rather than the cause, when the vehicle's ignition is off and the occupants are engaged in activities unrelat…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the automobile was merely the physical situs of the injury that occurred to Mr. Parker, and the injury was not one related or incidental to the use of the vehicle”
Establishes the court's key holding that mere presence in a vehicle is insufficient for PIP coverage without a nexus to vehicle use
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMr. Parker, a passenger in his girlfriend's car parked in a liquor store parking lot, was struck by a rock thrown through the front window by an unkno…
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 Claim For Insurance Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from a summary judgment entered in favor of Atlas Mutual Insurance Company (Atlas) based on the trial court’s determination that there was not a sufficient nexus between the use of the automobile insured by Atlas and Mr. Parker’s injuries so as to warrant the imposition of personal injury protection (PIP) benefits. The undisputed facts concerning the incident giving rise to the claim are that Mr. Parker, a passenger in the automobile owned by his girlfriend, was struck by a rock thrown through the front window of the car by an unknown assailant. At the time of the accident, the vehicle ignition was turned off, the car was located in the Jax Liquor Store parking lot, and Parker and his girlfriend were seated in the car mixing and consuming alcoholic beverages. Mr. Parker brought suit on the insurance policy issued to him by Atlas for injuries arising out of the “ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle.” § 627.736(1), Fla.Stat. Having reviewed the record before us and pertinent decisions, we find that the trial court did not err in entering the summary judgment below. Feltner v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, 336 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Hernandez v. Protective Casualty Insurance Company, 473 So. 2d 1241, 1243 (Fla.1985); Allstate Insurance Company v. Famiglet-ti, 459 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); see Fleming v. Hill, 501 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), and cases cited therein. In the instant case, the automobile was merely the physical situs of the injury that occurred to Mr. Parker, and the injury was not one related or incidental to the use of the vehicle.
Accordingly, the judgment below is affirmed.
BOOTH, C.J., and MILLS, J., concur. WENTWORTH, J., dissents without written opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stilson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 692 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…Co. v. Exilus, 608 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 4th DCA) (no coverage where insured driver stopped at stop sign and was shot by assailant who drove next to him and asked for directions), appeal dismissed, 613 So. 2d 3 (Fla.1992); Parker v. Atlas Mut. Ins. Co., 506 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (no coverage where insured was sitting in girlfriend’s car and struck by a rock thrown through front window of car by unknown assailant). See also Doyle v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 464 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (no co…
-
Blish v. Atlanta Cas. Co., 736 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 1999)…So. 2d 61 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (denying coverage where victim's stepdaughter and assailant were involved in domestic dispute, and victim was shot by assailant as he drove stepdaughter in her car past assailant’s home); Parker v. Atlas Mut. Ins. Co., 506 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (denying coverage where victim and girlfriend were sitting in car in parking lot and unknown assailant threw rock through front window); Doyle v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 464 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (denying coverag…
Authorities Cited
- Hernandez v. Protective Cas. Ins. Co., 473 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 1985)
- Feltner v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 336 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Famigletti, 459 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Fleming v. Hill, 501 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)