William Dawson Cave shot and killed Sharyn Cole on 17 September 1994 while she was seated in her parked van in the driveway of his Brandywine, Maryland, home. As a result, John Eddy Jackson Cole (Petitioner), husband of Ms. Cole, submitted, as personal representative of her estate, a claim for accidental death benefits under Ms. Cole’s automobile liability policy written by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm). State Farm (Respondent) denied coverage. Petitioner then filed a breach of contract claim against Respondent in the District Court of Maryland sitting in Prince George’s County. Upon Respondent’s request for a jury trial, the case was transferred to the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County. The Circuit Court granted Respondent’s motion for summary judgment, concluding as a matter *301 of law that Ms. Cole’s death was not the result of an “accident” within the meaning of that term as used in the policy. In an unpublished opinion, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed. At Petitioner’s request, we granted a writ of certio-rari 1 to determine whether Ms. Cole’s death was the result of an “accident.” 2
BACKGROUND
The facts of this case are not in dispute. On 17 September 1994, Petitioner and Ms. Cole traveled, in Ms. Cole’s 1994 Ford Van, to the home of William Dawson Cave. 3 Mr. Cole drove the van. Petitioner and Ms. Cole’s children, Erica (Age 5) and Cheyanne (Age 1) occupied the rear seat of the van. The purpose of the trip was to pick up Catherine Morgan Cole, Petitioner’s daughter from his previous marriage to Heather Cave, for a previously scheduled visitation. Heather Cave was Mr. Cave’s daughter.
After Petitioner pulled into Mr. Cave’s driveway, he left the engine of the van idling and exited the van to approach the house. When Petitioner was only a few steps away from the van, he encountered his former father-in-law. Mr. Cave produced a handgun and shot Petitioner two times. Petitioner retreated to the van and, as he was opening the driver side door, Mr. Cave shot Petitioner again. Mr. Cave then circled the van toward Ms. Cole’s side of the vehicle. In her panic, she was unable to release her seat belt. Mr. Cave fired two shots at Ms. Cole from close range through the passenger window. Mr. Cave then shot and killed himself. Petitioner survived the attack, but Ms. Cole died from her gunshot *302 injuries. Cheyanne received minor injuries from flying glass. Fortunately, Erica was unharmed.
At the time of the shooting, State Farm had in effect a policy of insurance, naming Ms. Cole as the insured, covering her van. The provision of the policy that is relevant to this appeal is the “Death, Dismemberment, and Loss of Sight” clause in Section V of the policy. Section V provides, in pertinent part:
We [Respondent] will pay the amount shown in the schedule that applies for death, or loss, caused by accident. The insured has to be occupying or be struck by a land motor vehicle or trailer. The death or loss must be the direct result of the accident and not due to any other cause. The death or loss must occur within 90 days of the accident.
(Emphasis in original). The amount of coverage for accidental death was $10,000.
On 13 January 1997, Petitioner, acting as the personal representative for his wife’s estate, filed a claim with Respondent requesting payment pursuant to Section V of his wife’s insurance policy. By letter dated 16 January 1997, Respondent denied Petitioner’s claim. The reason given was that, relying on
DeJarnette v. Federal Kemper Ins. Co.,
Petitioner then filed a complaint in the District Court on 6 March 1997 alleging that Respondent breached the insurance contract by refusing to pay the accidental death benefit. He sought $10,000 in damages. Respondent requested a jury trial on 29 May 1997 and the case was transferred to the Circuit Court on 12 June 1997.
Petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment on 18 March 1998. In his motion, Petitioner pointed out that the parties agreed that Ms. Cole’s insurance policy was in effect at the time of the incident and that she was seated in her van, *303 with the engine running, when she was shot fatally. He asserted that the only issue in the case was whether his wife’s death was caused by an “accident” within the meaning of the term in the relevant policy coverage. Petitioner argued that the incident which caused his wife’s death was an “accident” because she did not anticipate that she would be murdered while waiting in the van in Mr. Cave’s driveway.
On 16 April 1998, Respondent filed an opposition to the Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment. 4 Respondent admitted that when Ms. Cole was murdered her van was insured under a valid State Farm policy and that she was an occupant of the insured vehicle at the time Mr. Cave shot her. Respondent contended, however, that Maryland case law requires a casual connection between the use of a vehicle and the claimant’s death before a court may declare liability under the* policy. Respondent asserted that there was no connection between Mr. Cave’s violent acts and Ms. Cole’s use of her van. The fact that she was seated in her van when she was murdered, Respondent suggested, is not enough to impose liability under the policy.
In an order dated 21 May 1998, the Circuit Court denied Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of Respondent, holding that:
the word “accident” as used in Section V of the applicable insurance policy ... is defined in the typical understanding of the word and is not given the liberal definition provided under the uninsured motorist coverage, and because the facts of this case do not support the argument that Sharyn Kae Cole’s death was “caused by accident” as stated in Section V of the applicable policy.
Petitioner filed post-judgment motions, within ten days of the docketing of the order granting summary judgment, pursuant *304 to Md. Rule 2-534. The Circuit Court denied those motions on 17 July 1998.
Petitioner noted an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals on 4 August 1998.
5
The intermediate appellate court set forth two alternative reasons for its affirmance of the Circuit Court’s judgment. Relying on an excerpt from
DeJarnette v. Federal Kemper Ins. Co.,
ANALYSIS
I.
Before we consider the merits of this appeal, we set forth the principles that will guide our interpretation of the language of the insurance policy in question. Our primary task in interpreting an insurance policy, as with any contract, is to apply the terms of the contract itself.
See Chantel Assoc. v. Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co.,
If the meaning of the terms of the insurance policy are plain and unambiguous, we will determine the meaning of the terms of the contract as a matter of law.
See id.
at 389,
Turning to the policy at issue in this case, we note that it is, in our experience, somewhat unusual to find the type of first party coverage
6
represented by the accidental death and dismemberment coverage here in question in an automobile liability policy. Automobile liability insurance, typically thought of as third party coverage, often contains a number of types of first party coverage, such as uninsured motorist claims, collision, comprehensive, medical payments, and personal injury protection.
See Bausch & Bomb, Inc. v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co.,
We [Respondent] will pay the amount shown in the schedule that applies for death, or loss, caused by accident. The insured has to be occupying or be struck by a land motor vehicle or trailer. The death or loss must be the direct result of the accident and not due to any other cause. The death or loss must occur within 90 days of the accident.
(Emphasis in original).
The language of the policy plainly requires the existence of three interdependent elements before Respondent is obligated to pay accidental death benefits to its insured. The insured first has to be occupying a motor vehicle when a death or loss is inflicted. Next, the death or loss caused to the insured must be the direct result of an “accident.” 7 Finally, the death *307 or loss must occur within ninety days of the “accident.” Respondent concedes that Ms. Cole occupied a covered vehicle at the time she was shot and that she died within moments after she was shot. Thus, the sole focus of our inquiry in this case is whether Ms. Cole’s death was the direct result of an “accident.”
Both parties assert that under Maryland law, “accident” is defined for present purposes as “a happening; an event that takes place without one’s foresight or expectation; an event which proceeds from an unknown cause, or is an unusual effect from a known cause, and therefore not expected.”
Harleysville Mut. Cas. Co. v. Harris & Brooks, Inc.
The distinction is critical. The undisputed facts of this case are that Mr. Cave carried a gun to Ms. Cole’s van, aimed it toward her, and fired it. Standing in Mr. Cave’s shoes, Ms. Cole’s death hardly can be called an accident. It seems obvious that was the lower courts’ analytical vantage point and remains State Farm’s in this Court. Switching positions, however, if one takes Ms. Cole’s perspective, her death may be said to have been the result of an accident if her murder occurred without her foresight or expectation. See id. No alternative vantage points have been suggested by the parties, nor do we deem there to be any. Therefore, our real task in this case is to determine whether the fatal incident should be analyzed from the perspective of Mr. Cave, the murderer, or Ms. Cole, the insured victim.
Respondent offers three Maryland cases to support its position that we should define the term “accident” from the actor’s, Mr. Cave’s, perspective. The first is
Harleysville Mut. Cas. Co. v. Harris & Brooks, Inc.,
The policy that was the subject of the suit between Harris
&
Brooks, Inc. and its insurer required the insurer to pay all sums which Harris & Brooks, Inc. became legally obligated to pay as damages “caused by accident.”
See Harleysville Mut. Cas. Co.,
We agreed with the insurance company’s argument. We observed that the fact that damages were caused by an intentional act did not preclude us from finding that they were caused by “accident” if something unforeseen produces an unexpected result.
See id.
at 151,
Respondent next directs our attention to
Glens Falls Ins. Co. v. American Oil Co.,
The final Maryland case of the principal trilogy relied upon by Respondent is
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Treas,
State Farm, Treas’s automobile liability insurer, filed -a petition for declaratory judgment to establish that Ms. Dawson’s death was not covered under Treas’s policy. The relevant terms of the policy obligated State Farm to pay for liability incurred by Treas if the liability was “caused by an accident.” Again, the policy coverage at issue was for liability to a third party. The trial judge found that Ms. Dawson’s death was “caused by an accident.” We reversed the Circuit Court. We explained that injuries caused by intentional acts may be “caused by accident” if something in the intentional act produces an unusual or unexpected result.
See Treas,
Respondent offers Harleysville, Glens Falls Ins. Co., and Treas to support its position that we should view the events that caused Ms. Cole’s death from Mr. Cave’s perspective. Respondent reasons that in each of the above cases this Court viewed the events that caused the damage from the actor’s point of view and denied coverage in each case because the actor’s intentional acts caused foreseeable damages. According to Respondent, when injury is caused by an intentional action, the injury cannot be the result of an “accident” because the actor intended to cause the resultant damage. Carrying that reasoning to the present case, Respondent asserts that “[t]his [Cjourt should follow its prior decisions in this instance, *311 and define “accident” according to its common, ordinary and everyday meaning, which would define the term from the perspective of the actor so as not to include the intentional shooting of another person.”
Respondent advances shallow interpretations of
Harleys-ville, Glens Falls Ins. Co.,
and
Treas.
State Farm does not take into account reasoning in each of the cases that states “the fact that an injury is caused by an intentional act does not preclude it from being caused by accident if in that act, something unforeseen, unusual and unexpected occurs which produces the event.”
Harleysville,
A troublesome omission in Harleysville, Glens Falls Ins. Co., and Treas, brought into focus by the present case, is that our reasoning in those cases did not clarify from which perspective a court should view an occurrence to determine whether the damages incurred from the occurrence were foreseeable or expected. Due, in part, to the roles the players in those cases occupied, i.e., the actor who committed the intentional act in each case was also the relevant insured party, our language is ambiguous as to whether the basis of the denial of coverage was because the damages were foreseeable from the intentional actor’s perspective or because the damages were foreseeable from the insured’s perspective.
In
Sheets v. Brethren Mut. Ins. Co.,
In our analysis in Sheets, we relied upon Harleysville, Glens Falls Ins. Co., and Treas to conclude that negligent misrepresentation may be considered an “accident.” Of greatest relevance to the present case, we also clarified the perspective to be used in determining whether negligent actions may be considered accidental under the relevant policy. We explained, in pertinent part:
[a]lthough our prior cases may have been less than clear in explaining the relevant inquiry, we hold today that an act of negligence constitutes an ‘accident’ under a liability insurance policy when the resulting damage was ‘an event that takes place without [the insured’s] foresight or expectation.’ Harleysville,248 Md. at 154 ,235 A.2d at 559 (citation omitted). In other words, when a negligent act causes damage that is unforeseen or unexpected by the insured, the act is an ‘accident’ under a general liability policy.
Sheets,
This Court has not been faced with the question of whether an intentional tort may be considered an “accident” as that term is used in accidental death insurance coverage. The U.S.
*313
District Court for the District of Maryland, however, has addressed this issue. In
Lincoln Nat’l Life Ins. v. Evans,
The case came before the court on cross-motions for summary judgment.
10
The insurance companies argued that due to an alleged pattern of severe abuse by Mr. Hawkins against Ms. Hawkins, his murder was not an unexpected or unforeseen event and therefore not an “accident.” To resolve the insurance companies’ argument, the court first assayed to define the term “accident.” The court stated that in defining “accident” in the case of an intentional homicide, the prevailing view is to look at the facts “from the viewpoint of the insured, not that of the killer.”
Lincoln Nat’l Life Ins.,
‘[t]he majority of courts do not perceive the slaying through the eyes of the murderer, which would undoubtedly reflect a wilful, deliberate, calculated act rather than an accident. Instead they see the killing from the viewpoint of the victim to whom, absent misconduct from which he or she should have reasonably anticipated that he or she would be killed, the murder is unforeseen, unexpected and accidental within the terms of the insurance policy.’ Thus, the necessary *314 inquiry in the within case focuses on what Mr. Hawkins’ viewpoint was of the act which caused his death.
Id.
(quoting
Lamb v. Northwestern Nat’l Life Ins. Co.,
After making clear that the victim’s perspective would control the court’s analysis of the events, it explained and applied a two-part test to determine whether Mr. Hawkins should have expected, subjectively or objectively, that his wife would kill him.
See id.
(citing
Wickman v. Northwestern Nat’l Ins. Co.,
Applying the foregoing analytical paradigm to facts before it, the court found no direct evidence in the record that established Mr. Hawkins expected to be murdered. It then sought to determine whether a reasonable person in Mr. Hawkins’s position would have thought that the attack was highly likely to occur. The court concluded that although substantial evidence existed establishing that Mr. Hawkins severely abused Ms. Hawkins, including a fierce beating just *315 hours before she eventually killed him, reasonable minds could differ as to whether, under the objective prong of the test, Mr. Hawkins’s death was the result of an “accident.” The court rejected the summary judgment motions because the resolution of the case was dependent on a question more properly for the trier of fact to resolve.
The test applied by the court in Lincoln Nat’l Life Ins. strikes us as essentially a more detailed version of the analytical approach we most recently employed in Sheets. The federal court’s approach comports with Maryland law because it defines “accident” from the point of view of the insured. Specifically, and most germane to the case at hand, the test analyzes in detail and in a logical sequence the events of an intentional tort from the perspective of an insured who is also the victim of the intentional tort. Such is the factual context of the present case. Due to the conformity of the federal court’s reasoning with our prior pronouncements in this area of Maryland law, as well as the factual similarities between Lincoln Nat’l Life Ins. and the present case, we adopt and shall employ here the test applied in Lincoln Nat’l Life Ins.
Applying that test to the present case, it is clear to us that Ms. Cole’s death was the result of an “accident” as that term should be interpreted in her State Farm insurance policy. Respondent offered no evidence suggesting that, at the time Ms. Cole traveled to Mr. Cave’s home, she expected that Mr. Cave was going to attempt to kill her. Viewing the undisputed facts of the case objectively, there is also no evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could determine that a reasonable person in the same situation as Ms. Cole would have expected to be shot and killed as she sat in her van in Mr. Cave’s driveway. From Ms. Cole’s perspective, as the insured victim, the events which caused her death were “unforeseen, unusual and unexpected,” and therefore an “accident.”
See Sheets,
*316 We also consider other jurisdictions that have dealt with the issue before us in analogous first party coverage situations. We do so in recognition that:
like a state which adopts, by copying, a foreign statute, ... parties who adopt an insurance policy, which apparently has had nationwide use and has been judicially construed in five or six states, adopt with it the uniform judicial construction that it has received in other states ... In other words, while the contract term on its face may be ambiguous, ... the court in this situation may treat the term as unambiguous and, absent any factual dispute, adopt, as a matter of law, that construction placed on the language by the courts of other states.
Pacific Indem. Co.,
One additional consideration figures in reaching our holding in the present case. This Court has held in the past that when a term of an insurance policy is found to be ambiguous, a court will construe the ambiguous term against the drafter of the contract.
See Cheney v. Bell Nat’l Life Ins. Co.,
As stated earlier, a contract term is ambiguous if a reasonable person could determine that the contract term is susceptible to at least two different meanings.
See Pacific Indem.,
We are not convinced by Respondent’s assertion that the term “accident” is susceptible to only one meaning, particularly in light of Respondent’s apparent practice of offering whatever definitional perspective that serves its purpose du jour. Based on the ambiguity we find in the term “accident,” we construe the term “accident” against the drafter of this insurance contract and in favor of the insured.
We hold, under the facts of this case, that Ms. Cole’s death was the direct result of an “accident” because her shooting was an unusual and unforeseen event when viewed from her perspective as the insured victim. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals and remand the case for further remand to the Circuit Court with directions to enter judgment in favor of the Petitioner on his motion for summary judgment.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS REVERSED; CASE REMANDED TO THAT COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO REVERSE THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY AND TO REMAND THIS CASE TO THAT *319 COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO ENTER JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF JOHN EDDY JACKSON COLE AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF SHARYN COLE’S ESTATE; COSTS IN THIS COURT AND THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS TO BE PAID BY STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY.
Notes
.
Cole v. State Farm,
. The specific question presented in Petitioner’s petition for writ of certiorari is:
[d]id the Circuit Court err in determining that the event resulting in the death of Appellant’s decedent was not an accident?
. The vehicle was titled in her name only.
. Because of the relief requested in Respondent’s opposition to Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment, specifically that “judgment be entered in favor of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company,” the Circuit Court treated the opposition as a cross-motion for summary judgment.
. As the present case was proceeding through the trial courts, two related actions were advancing concurrently through the same courts. The related actions, identified in the Circuit Court as CAL97-18707 and CAL97-18708, involved Petitioner’s unsuccessful efforts, as an individual and as personal representative of his wife’s estate, respectively, to recover personal injury protection (PIP) benefits under the same policy.
CAL97-18707 and CAL97-18708 originally were filed and tried together in the District Court. In both cases, the District Court found there was no entitlement to PIP benefits. Before Petitioner’s appeals of the District Court's judgments in those cases were argued in the Circuit Court, he filed a motion to consolidate CAL97-18707 and CAL97-18708 with the present case. The order granting consolidation of the three cases was signed by the Circuit Court on 31 July 1998, but not docketed until 1 December 1998. The Circuit Court affirmed the District Court judgments in CAL97-18707 and CAL97-18708 on 1 December 1998. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Special Appeals in CAL97-18707 and CAL97-18708 on 22 December 1998, but apparently withdrew the appeal on 12 March 1999.
Although Petitioner filed his notice of appeal in the present case within thirty days of the disposition of his post-judgment motions, but before final judgments were entered in the consolidated actions, CAL97-18707 and CAL97-18708, the judgment in the present case was final, when appealed, and we may proceed with our consideration of the merits of the present appeal.
See Yarema v. Exxon Corp.,
. First party coverage "is a promise by the insurer to pay its own insured, rather than a promise to its insured to pay some third party.”
Reese v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co.,
. The term "accident” is not defined in the Defined Words section or any other part of the insurance policy.
. The driver committed suicide two weeks after the incident.
. In Glens Falls Ins. Co., we quoted from Appleman, 7 Insurance Law and Practice § 4312 (1942) stating, "whether or not an injury is accidental has been held determinable by the state of mind of the person who inflicts the injury.” To the extent that treatise commentary is inconsistent with our holding in this case, we here disavow further reliance on it. We note further that in the 1999 supplement to Apple-man, the editors have added the language "coverage still exists under the normal provisions of an automobile policy if there was no intention on the part of the insured to cause, by commission of his acts, resulting injuries or damages.” Appleman, 7 Insurance Law and Practice § 4312 (1979, 1999 Cum.Supp.).
. Although the insurance policies were issued under a ERISA-gov-erned benefit plan, the Court explained that it would be guided by Maryland law, to the extent it was available to interpret the policies at issue.
See Lincoln Nat’l Life Ins.,
. In
Lamb,
the Court of Special Appeals, applying the law of the District of Columbia, held that the murder of a man by his wife could be considered a death "through external, violent and accidental means” as that term was used in the double indemnity clause of the husband’s life insurance policy.
See also Harris v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.,