ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE,
v.
HAROLD FURO, APPELLANT
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.
Harold Furo was struck by a bullet fired by Jack York through a vehicle window while sitting in the passenger seat. Furo sought personal injury protection benefits from Allstate under a motor vehicle policy, claiming his injury resulted from the "use of the motor vehicle." The court reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the vehicle was merely the physical location of the injury, not its cause.
The court held that the injury did not arise from the use of the motor vehicle because there was no causal connection between the vehicle's use and the injury. The vehicle was merely the physical situs where the injury occurred, not the cause of it. Recovery under a motor vehicle insurance policy requires that the assailant's motivation for the attack must involve possession or use of the vehicle itself.
[1] Personal injury protection benefits for injuries sustained in a shooting incident do not arise out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle when the vehic…
[2] For an injury to arise out of the use of a motor vehicle, there must be a connection or relation between the vehicle and the injury beyond the mere physical presence of t…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“that it is not enough that an automobile be the physical situs of an injury or that the injury occurs incidentally to the use of an automobile, but that there must be a causal connection or relation between the two for liability to exist.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard requiring causal connection between vehicle use and injury, not merely physical presence in the vehicle
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJack York, who was estranged from Michelle Pagel, made numerous threats to kill her and attempted multiple attacks including choking, ramming her vehi…
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 Pip Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, Judge.
Michelle Pagel had been romantically involved with, but became estranged from, Jack York. York, not willing to accept Pagel’s decision, threatened almost daily to kill her. He made several attempts — choking her in her house and in a parked car, ramming her vehicle with his, and shooting at her. He followed her vehicle on other occasions. Finally, he saw Pagel driving her vehicle past his residence and shot through her vehicle window, missing her, but hitting her stepfather, Harold Furo.
Furo sued Allstate Insurance Company claiming personal injury protection benefits because his injury resulted from the “use of the motor vehicle.” The trial court agreed and entered judgment in favor of Furo. We reverse.
This case is controlled in this district by Reynolds v. Allstate Insurance Company, 400 So. 2d 496, 497 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981):
In Stonewall [Stonewall Insurance Company v. Walfe, 372 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), cert. denied, 385 So. 2d 762 (Fla.1980) ] it is noted that the court in Appleton [General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corp., Ltd. v. Appleton, 355 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 361 So. 2d 830 (Fla.1978) ] concluded “that it is not enough that an automobile be the physical situs of an injury or that the injury occurs incidentally to the use of an automobile, but that there must be a causal connection or relation between the two for liability to exist.”
In Reynolds the occupant of the vehicle was injured by an assailant hiding within the vehicle but there was no indication that the assailant desired either the use or possession of the vehicle. Liability was denied.
In Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Novak, 453 So. 2d 1116 (Fla.1984), the supreme court, distinguishing Reynolds, permitted recovery when the driver refused her assailant a lift, was shot and pulled out of her car and the vehicle driven off by the assailant. The court held that:
Obtaining a ride in or possession of the motor vehicle was what motivated the deranged Endicott to approach and attack the deceased.
Novak at 1119.
In State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Barth, 579 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) we found coverage in a situation in which the assailant, sitting in the car with the driver, ordered her to drive off. Her refusal resulted in a severe beating.
But no case yet has found a sufficient nexus between the use of the vehicle and the injury when it has not been shown that the assailant either desired possession (Novak) or use (Barth) of the victim’s automobile. In both Novak and Barth the possession or use of the vehicle was the focus of the encounter and the motivation for the attack.
In the present case, York wanted to do injury to Pagel — any place, any time. When she drove by his residence, she presented an opportunity he could not resist. He shot at her and hit Furo, not because they were in the vehicle, but because they were in the vicinity. The vehicle was merely the situs of the injury and not the cause of it.
REVERSED.
COBB and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fortune Ins. Co. v. Renal Exilus, 608 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…his wife from her place of business and transported her in a vehicle owned by the parties. While in the vehicle, the husband shot and killed the wife. PIP benefits were denied on the ground of no causal connection. In Allstate Insurance Co. v. Furo, 588 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), the insured was shot while riding as a passenger in a vehicle driven by his stepdaughter. An ex-boyfriend of the stepdaughter fired a gun at her while she was driving by his house, but the bullet struck the insured. The Fifth Di…
-
Trott v. Finlayson, 690 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) (reversing judgment in favor of plaintiff where injuries were caused by fists of criminals who assaulted plaintiff, and automobile was only physical situs, not instrumentality, of assault); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Furo, 588 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (noting a sufficient nexus between the automobile and injury exists only when it is shown the assailant desired either possession or use of the victim’s automobile). Trott’s mere presence in Hurst’s vehicle at the time of the sho…
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ye Jin JUN, 712 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…ant then fled in a different vehicle. Id. We ruled that PIP coverage was available because the driver’s injuries arose out of her resistance to the assailant’s efforts to obtain the use of her vehicle. Id. at 156. In Allstate Insurance Co. v. Furo, 588 So. 2d 61, 62 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), the assailant was the estranged boyfriend of the driver. When the assailant spotted the driver passing by his residence, he fired a shot into her ear and struck her father, who was a passenger in the car. Id. We ruled that t…
Previewing 3 of 5 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)
- Reynolds v. Allstate Ins. Co., 400 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Gen. Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp., Ltd. v. Appleton, 355 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Stonewall Ins. Co. v. Wolfe, 372 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Barth, 579 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)