Walden v. Smith
427 S.W.3d 269
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Walden appeals after trial court granted summary judgment for American Family on uninsured motorist coverage; issue is whether Walden’s dog bite injuries arise out of the use of Smith’s uninsured vehicle.
- Smith’s pickup contained two pit bulls; Walden was bitten through an open window while approaching the truck in a parking lot.
- Smith had no insurance; Walden had multiple American Family auto policies.
- Policies provide uninsured motorist coverage for bodily injury caused by an uninsured vehicle that arises out of its use; “arise out of” and “use” definitions are key and undefined in the policy.
- Trial court held Walden’s injuries did not arise out of the use of the uninsured vehicle; Walden and American Family cross-moved for summary judgment; court granted judgment for American Family.
- This appeal affirms the trial court’s summary judgment holding no coverage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Walden’s dog bite injuries arise out of the use of Smith’s uninsured vehicle? | Walden argues Smith used the vehicle as a dog cage; but-for use, dog would not bite. | American Family argues there is no causal link between use of the vehicle and the injuries; the vehicle was only the situs of the injury. | No; injuries do not arise out of the use of the vehicle as a matter of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmidt v. Utilities Insurance Co., 353 Mo. 213, 182 S.W.2d 181 (Mo. 1944) (arising out of requires a broad causal connection, not proximate cause; origin from the vehicle’s use)
- Ward v. Int'l Indem. Co., 897 S.W.2d 627 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995) (injuries from a drive-by or related use must arise out of the vehicle’s use; not merely be the situs)
- Pope v. Stolts, 712 S.W.2d 434 (Mo. App. E.D. 1986) (use includes supervisory control or guidance; broader than direct operation)
- Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 599 S.W.2d 516 (Mo. App. E.D. 1980) (use includes moving or impelling the vehicle; creates a condition that caused the accident)
- Cameron Mut. Ins. Co., 599 S.W.2d 13 (Mo. App. W.D. 1980) (vehicle merely situs; no causal connection to injury; no coverage)
- Esmod v. Bituminous Cos. Corp., 23 S.W.3d 748 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000) (injury must arise out of use of uninsured vehicle; not the injured person’s vehicle)
- Colony Ins. Co. v. Pinewoods Enterprises, Inc., 29 F.Supp.2d 1079 (E.D. Mo. 1998) (arising out of is broad: origin from operations; causal connection required)
- Capitol Indemnity Corp. v. 1405 Associates, Inc., 340 F.3d 547 (8th Cir. 2003) (arising out of means causal connection between injury and insured’s operations)
- Steelman v. Holford, 765 S.W.2d 372 (Mo. App. S.D. 1989) (injury must bear causal connection to vehicle use; situs alone insufficient)
- Brown v. Shelter Mut. Insurance Co., 838 S.W.2d 148 (Mo. App. W.D. 1992) (vehicle as situs for shooting; no coverage where use did not create the condition)
- Ward v. Int'l Indem. Co., 897 S.W.2d 627 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995) (reiterated standard for arising out of use in UM context)