BOBBY D. FELTNER, APPELLANT,
v.
HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY 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.
This case involves an appeal of a summary judgment denying a Personal Injury Protection (PIP) claim under an automobile insurance policy. The insured was beaten with a pipe by the daughter's father after driving her to visit her boyfriend, and the court held that the injury did not arise out of the use of the vehicle as required by the policy.
The injury did not arise out of the use of the motor vehicle as required by the policy. The automobile was merely the physical location of the assault, and the use of the automobile was only incidental to the Pendarvis assault rather than an integral part of the events causing the injury.
[1] An injury does not arise out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle when the vehicle is merely the physical situs of the accident and the use of the veh…
[2] For an injury to arise out of the use of a motor vehicle, there must be a sufficient causal connection between the use of the automobile and the injury sustained.
Previewing 2 of 2 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 injury was caused by an accident "arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use" of the motor vehicle as required by the policy”
States the policy requirement that the court found was not met in this case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFeltner drove the Pendarvis family's daughter in an insured automobile to visit her boyfriend at her mother's request. When Feltner returned the daugh…
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 Automobile Insurance Policy Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Judge.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment denying a claim under the Personal Injury Protection provisions of a policy issued by Hartford to Bobby D. Feltner. Feltner and Ernie Pendarvis had been out playing pool. They returned to the Pendarvis home. Apparently outside the hearing of her husband, Pendarvis’ wife persuaded Feltner to take their daughter to see the daughter’s boyfriend who lived several miles away. Pursuant to Mrs. Pendar-vis’ request, Feltner carried the girl in the insured automobile to her boyfriend’s house. Since her boyfriend was not home, he brought her back to the Pendarvis residence. Upon their return, Feltner stopped his car to permit the girl to get out on the passenger side. At this point, the driver’s door was opened by Pendarvis who was holding a piece of pipe in his hand. Pendar-vis hit Feltner in the face with the pipe breaking his nose and cheekbones.
The record is not clear why Pendarvis struck Feltner. Feltner argues that he is entitled to the inference that it was because Pendarvis thought that Feltner was seducing his daughter. Giving Feltner the benefit of this and all other reasonable inferences, we still cannot see how the injury was caused by an accident “arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use” of the motor vehicle as required by the policy.
Construing similar language in Watson v. Watson, Fla.App.2d, 1976, 326 So. 2d 48, our court held there was no liability coverage when a man was accidently killed by a pistol when he was removing it from his father’s automobile following an accident so that the automobile could be taken to the garage for repairs. Just as in Watson, Feltner’s car was merely the physical situs of the accident.
We cannot accept the contention that the use of the automobile was an integral part of the events surrounding Feltner’s injuries because he had been using it for the pur pose of transporting Pendarvis’ daughter. The use of the automobile was only incidental to the Pendarvis assault. Such imagined provocation as Pendarvis may have had related to Feltner’s association with his daughter. There was an insufficient causal connection between the use of the automobile and the attack on Feltner. AFFIRMED.
BOARDMAN, Acting C. J., and SCHEB, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Nat'l Merchandise Co., Inc. v. United Serv. Auto. Ass'n & Jerome C. Cohan & Lyndia Cohan Boyd, 400 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…The “Plain English" Law, 50 N.Y. Bar Journal 479 (1978) for coverage of the public interest generated by this concept. . See, also, Florida Farm Bureau v. Shaffer, 391 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Feltner v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., 336 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1976); Valdes v. Smalley, 303 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1974), cert. discharged [*531] National Ben Franklin Ins. Co. v. Valdes, 341 So. 2d 975 (Fla.1976); General Accident, Fire and Life Assurance Corp. v. Appleton, 355 So. 2d 1261 (Fl…
-
Stilson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 692 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…7 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979) (no coverage for minor passenger in the back of a truck who was accidentally shot in the eye by a boy carrying a gun standing behind truck), cert. denied, 385 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 1980); Feltner v. Hartford Accident and Indem. Co., 336 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) (no coverage for driver of assailants' car injured when assailant struck driver because he was transporting his daughter without permission). . Certiorari can also be used to determine whether the petitioner received procedural d…
-
Reynolds v. Allstate Ins. Co., 400 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…(Fla.4th DCA 1979), cert. denied, 385 So. 2d 762 (Fla.1980), 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), Feltner v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, 336 So. 2d 142 (Fla.2d DCA 1976), and Watson v. Watson, 326 So. 2d 48 (Fla.2d DCA 1976). In Stonewall it is noted that the court in Appleton concluded “that it is not enough that an automobile be the physical situs of an injury or that the injury occur incidental…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Watson v. Watson, 326 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)