{ "id": 6141248, "name": "AMERICAN UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY v. Steven DRUMMOND, Judy Drummond, Kenneth Dilks, and Tina Dilks", "name_abbreviation": "American Underwriters Insurance v. Drummond", "decision_date": "2006-03-01", "docket_number": "CA 05-847", "first_page": "312", "last_page": "317", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "94 Ark. App. 312" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "230 S.W.3d 320" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.", "id": 13370, "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "353 Ark. 188", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1155517 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/353/0188-01" ] }, { "cite": "718 P.2d 812", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "43 Wash. App. 475", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wash. App.", "case_ids": [ 1806464 ], "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/wash-app/43/0475-01" ] }, { "cite": "955 S.W.2d 81", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 11890678 ], "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/sw2d/955/0081-01" ] }, { "cite": "414 N.Y.S.2d 489", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.S.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "98 Misc. 2d 657", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Misc. 2d", "case_ids": [ 1927453 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/misc2d/98/0657-01" ] }, { "cite": "769 A.2d 392", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.2d", "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "146 N.H. 249", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.H.", "case_ids": [ 380838 ], "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nh/146/0249-01" ] }, { "cite": "3 Neb. App. 198", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Neb. Ct. App.", "case_ids": [ 4393933 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/neb-app/3/0198-01" ] }, { "cite": "16 Kan. App. 2d 26", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Kan. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 357032 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/kan-app-2d/16/0026-01" ] }, { "cite": "10 Ark. App. 16", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6136248 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "18" }, { "page": "953" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/10/0016-01" ] }, { "cite": "264 Ark. 743", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1669093 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/264/0743-01" ] }, { "cite": "93 Ark. App. 502", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6142950 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2006, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/93/0502-01" ] }, { "cite": "353 Ark. 668", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1155540 ], "weight": 4, "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/353/0668-01" ] }, { "cite": "85 Ark. App. 395", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6141281 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/85/0395-01" ] }, { "cite": "344 Ark. 177", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 210189 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/344/0177-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 607, "char_count": 9180, "ocr_confidence": 0.719, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.1749420526061558 }, "sha256": "eea62c00540984b90f3868dcdeae60cc51fe06a75ef157443d4e2317342e984f", "simhash": "1:18c6fcfbb01cdf33", "word_count": 1548 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:52:04.997483+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Vaught and Roaf, JJ., agree." ], "parties": [ "AMERICAN UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY v. Steven DRUMMOND, Judy Drummond, Kenneth Dilks, and Tina Dilks" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Josephine Linker Hart, Judge.\nAppellant American Underwriters Insurance Company (AUIC) filed a petition for a declaratory judgment claiming it owed no duty to defend or indemnify appellee Steven Drummond as the result of an incident in which Steven, while sitting in an insured vehicle, shot and injured Bobby Dilks, a minor. The trial court dismissed the petition after ruling that the incident fell within the coverage terms of AUIC\u2019s policy. AUIC now appeals and argues that the trial court erred in dismissing its petition. We agree and reverse and remand.\nThe following facts are taken from a complaint filed against Steven Drummond by appellees Kenneth and Tina Dilks to recover for their son Bobby\u2019s injuries. Steven lived across the highway from the Dilks family and, on June 23, 2002, became angry when a woman who lived with him asked Tina for a ride to Palestine, Arkansas. Steven blocked Kenneth and Tina\u2019s driveway with his pickup truck and later chased them along the highway and blocked their path after they left the premises in their vehicles. When they returned home, Steven continued during the course of the day to squeal his tires and speed along the highway in front of their home.\nThat evening, while Kenneth and Bobby were riding a four-wheeler along the highway, Steven twice drove up behind them and attempted to hit them; at one point, Kenneth also heard a gunshot. He headed for home and, upon arriving there, stopped and sent Bobby into the house. He then parked in the carport, after which the following occurred, as related in the complaint:\nAs Kenneth Dilks approached the front of the house... to enter the house, the defendant pulled his vehicle in front of the plaintiffs\u2019 house and while using the pickup truck as a weapon platform the defendant continued his \u201croad rage\u201d by pointing a twelve gage [sic] shotgun out of the driver\u2019s side of the defendant\u2019s motor vehicle and shot at Kenneth Dilks. The projectile fired by the twelve gage [sic] pump shotgun was a slug that went through the wall of the plaintiffs\u2019 house and struck the right side of Bobby Dilks\u2019 abdomen and passed through his body and exited on the left side of his abdomen. . . .\nThe complaint also mentioned that, \u201cbased on newspaper accounts,\u201d Steven told the authorities that, in firing the gun, he was attempting to scare Kenneth and did not intend to shoot anyone.\nAfter Kenneth and Tina\u2019s suit was filed, Steven\u2019s attorney forwarded the suit papers to AUIC, presumably seeking a defense and coverage. This prompted AUIC to file the present declaratory-judgment action asserting that its policy \u201cdoes not cover intentional acts but rather only provides liability [coverage] for bodily injury arising out of an automobile accident.\u201d The pertinent policy provisions are as follows:\nWe will pay damages for \u201cbodily injury\u201d or \u201cproperty damage\u201d for which any \u201cinsured\u201d becomes legally responsible because of an auto accident.\nA. We do not provide Liability Coverage for any \u201cinsured\u201d:\n1. Who intentionally causes \u201cbodily injury \u201d or \u201cproperty damage.\u201d\n(Emphasis added.) True and accurate copies of the policy and underlying complaint were attached to AUIC\u2019s petition.\nKenneth and Tina, who were named as defendants in the petition, responded with a motion to dismiss, claiming that the term \u201cauto accident\u201d was not defined in the policy and was therefore ambiguous; that there was a causal connection between Steven\u2019s use of the vehicle and Bobby\u2019s injuries; and that Steven did not intentionally shoot Bobby. Following a hearing, the trial court adopted these arguments and dismissed AUIC\u2019s complaint. AUIC now appeals from that dismissal and relies on the above quoted policy provisions for its claim that no duty to defend or coverage is owed.\nIn reviewing a trial court\u2019s grant of a motion to dismiss, we treat the facts alleged in the complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to the party who filed the complaint. See Martin v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc\u2019y, 344 Ark. 177, 40 S.W.3d 733 (2001). All reasonable inferences must be resolved in favor of the complaint, and the pleadings are to be liberally construed. Id.\nThe language of an insurance policy is to be construed in its plain, ordinary, and popular sense. Curley v. Old Reliable Cas. Co., 85 Ark. App. 395, 155 S.W.3d 711 (2004). If the language of the policy is unambiguous, we will give effect to the plain language of the policy without resorting to the rules of construction. Hisaw v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 353 Ark. 668, 122 S.W.3d 1 (2003). On the other hand, if the language is ambiguous, we will construe the policy liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer. Id. Language is ambiguous if there is doubt or uncertainty as to its meaning and it is susceptible to more than one equally reasonable interpretation. See Ison v. Southern Farm Bureau Ins. Co., 93 Ark. App. 502, 221 S.W.3d 373 (2006).\nThe first question before us is whether the shooting incident in this case was an \u201cauto accident.\u201d Our courts have not defined that term as it is used in an insurance policy. However, our courts have decided similar cases where an insuring agreement provided coverage for injuries \u201carising out of\u2019 the ownership, maintenance, or use of a vehicle.\nIn Harford Fire Insurance Co. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 264 Ark. 743, 574 S.W.2d 265 (1978), two boys were playing inside a parked recreational vehicle. One of the boys picked up a gun and pointed it at another boy outside the vehicle. The weapon discharged, and the boy was killed. Coverage was sought under the vehicle\u2019s insurance policy. The supreme court held that no coverage was owed and that the shooter\u2019s presence inside the vehicle did not make the injury one arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of the vehicle.\nIn Carter v. Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Co., 10 Ark. App. 16, 660 S.W.2d 952 (1983), shots were fired inside a vehicle and both occupants died as a result. The administrator of one of the decedents\u2019 estates sought coverage under a policy that provided benefits for injuries \u201ccaused by accident and arising out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle.\u201d This court ruled that, in order for insurance coverage to be present, \u201cthere must be a causal connection between the injury and the operation of the vehicle\u201d and that the only connection there was that the men \u201chappened to be in the automobile when the shooting occurred.\u201d Carter, 10 Ark. App. at 18, 660 S.W.2d at 953.\nIn the present case, as in Hartford and Carter, the victim\u2019s injuries were inflicted by a gun fired from within a vehicle. If the shooting or injuries in those cases cannot be said to have \u201carisen out of\u2019 the use of the vehicles, given the broad interpretation accorded to that phrase, then we do not believe that the shooting and injury in this case fall within the more limited phrase \u201cbecause of an auto accident.\u201d An auto accident, in its plain, ordinary, and popular sense, does not encompass a situation in which injury is caused by the intentional firing of a gun from an automobile. See generally 8A Couch on Insurance 3d \u00a7 119:5 (2005). Therefore, even if, as appellees claim, the shooting was the culmination of a series of events in which Steven used his vehicle to harass and terrorize them, only a strained construction would permit the shooting to be considered an \u201cauto accident.\u201d\nWe further note that there is considerable support for refusing to interpret \u201cauto accident\u201d (or a similar term) to include assaults that take place from within a vehicle. See, e.g., Allied Mut. Ins. Co. v. Patrick, 16 Kan. App. 2d 26, 819 P.2d 1233 (1991); Bisgard v. Johnson, 3 Neb. App. 198, 525 N.W.2d 225 (1994); Lebroke v. United States Fid. & Guar. Ins. Co., 146 N.H. 249, 769 A.2d 392 (2001); Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Auth. v. Gholson, 98 Misc. 2d 657, 414 N.Y.S.2d 489 (1979); Farmers Tex. County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Griffin, 955 S.W.2d 81 (Tex. 1997); Farmers Ins. Co. v. Grelis, 43 Wash. App. 475, 718 P.2d 812 (1986).\nFinally, we express our agreement with AUIC that the term \u201cauto accident\u201d is not vague or ambiguous simply because it was not defined in the policy. The lack of a policy definition does not render a term ambiguous. See Smith v. Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 353 Ark. 188, 114 S.W.3d 205 (2003); Curley, supra.\nIn light of the foregoing, we reverse the trial court\u2019s dismissal of AUIC\u2019s declaratory-judgment petition, and we remand for entry of an order consistent with this opinion. Our holding makes it unnecessary to reach the question of whether the policy\u2019s intentional-acts exclusion applies.\nReversed and remanded.\nVaught and Roaf, JJ., agree.\nSee Hisaw, supra, which recognized that the term \u201carising out of the use\u201d of a motor vehicle has been interpreted broadly.", "type": "majority", "author": "Josephine Linker Hart, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Brazil, Adlong & Winningham, PLC, by: William C. Brazil, for appellant.", "Daggett, Donovan, Perry & Flowers, PLLC, by: J. Shane Baker, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "AMERICAN UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY v. Steven DRUMMOND, Judy Drummond, Kenneth Dilks, and Tina Dilks\nCA 05-847\n230 S.W.3d 320\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered March 1, 2006\nBrazil, Adlong & Winningham, PLC, by: William C. Brazil, for appellant.\nDaggett, Donovan, Perry & Flowers, PLLC, by: J. Shane Baker, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0312-01", "first_page_order": 338, "last_page_order": 343 }