HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971We recognize that bodily injury resulti~q
from a criminal assault, under the terms of
an uninsured motorist policy, may be caused
by accident and arise "out of the ownershiP,
maintenance or use of an uninsured automo-
bile," as was the case in Leatherb~. How-
ever, the risks of bodily ni jnry from a
criminal assault are not normally contem-
plated by the part~ies to an automobile
liability insurance policy. For there to
be coverage there must-be a causal connec-
tio.n between the use of the automobile and
the badily injury resulting from the crim-
inal assault. This may be es~ablished by
showi~g that the automobile itself was
used to inflict the bodily injury~ as in
Geatherb~, or that the automobile was used
in some manner that contributed or added to
the bodily injury, as in Valdes. Consider-
ing the facts in this case, we conclude that
Appleton failed to show a sufficient causal
connection between the uninsured automobile
which was the situs of the criminal assault
and the bodily injury that he.suffered as a
, result of the assault.~
A case on virtually alI fours is Nationwide Mutual
Insurance Company v. Knight, 34 N.C. App. 96, 237 S.E. 2d 341
(1977). Based upon a similar shooting incident, the North Caro-
lina court concluded that an injury caused by gunshots fired from
the insured`s moving vehicle did not constitute an accident aris-
ing out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of an automobile.
The court also rejected the contention of the injured party that a
causal relationship was established simply by a showing that "but
for" the use of the automobile the accident would-not have hap-
pened. A similar result was reached in the case of Vanquard
Insurance Company v. Cantrell, 18 Ariz.App. 486, 503 P.2d 962
(1972). -
Shaffer principally relies upon two decisions from the
Third District. Both cases were discussed and distinguished in
APpleton, supra,. and for the same reasons we find those cases not
controlling here:
T~ao cases from the Third District have been '
considered in formulating our conclusion.
The court in National Indemnit~ Co. v. Corbo,
248 So.2d 238 '( Pla. 3d DCA 1971) , decicied
that an automobile liability insurance
s
i
~
~
~
:
~
1. The cases cited in this quote are Leatherbv Insurance Co. v.
WilloughbX, 315 So.2d 553 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975) and Valdes v.
Smalle~r, ~03 So.2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert.denied, 341 So.2d
975 (Fla. 1977).
-3- ~ g~K347~PA~E1965
~
~ __ _
.~~:;~:.,.~_~:.s.~,.« ~° __. _.... s~~
~
_~~~~~