{ "id": 1669093, "name": "THE HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO. and ROYAL INDEMNITY CO. v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS. CO.", "name_abbreviation": "Hartford Fire Ins. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins.", "decision_date": "1978-12-18", "docket_number": "78-177", "first_page": "743", "last_page": "745", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "264 Ark. 743" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "574 S.W.2d 265" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "175 S.E. 2d 299", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "450 S.W. 2d 491", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 10144311 ], "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/sw2d/450/0491-01" ] }, { "cite": "258 So. 2d 872", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2562147 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ala/288/0163-01" ] }, { "cite": "445 P. 2d 474", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "case_ids": [ 1230624 ], "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ariz-app/8/0272-01" ] }, { "cite": "262 Ark. 631", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1675873 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/262/0631-01" ] }, { "cite": "109 S.W. 2d 928", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "year": 1937, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "194 Ark. 817", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8724837 ], "year": 1937, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/194/0817-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 354, "char_count": 5093, "ocr_confidence": 0.805, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.433873710629762e-07, "percentile": 0.8023448471320143 }, "sha256": "61fcc3fd3c9612dd3336a420fa452c2c4c724a8aa1ada52ee9bb3b9fbcec8aff", "simhash": "1:d54ad79a1a68e75d", "word_count": 871 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:22:41.361067+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "We agree: Harris, C.J., and George Rose Smith and Howard, JJ." ], "parties": [ "THE HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO. and ROYAL INDEMNITY CO. v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS. CO." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Frank Holt, Justice,\nthe issue here is whether an accidental death caused by the discharge of p gun left in an insured vehicle while the gun was being hel\u00ed\u00ed by a person inside the parked vehicle is an injury \u201carising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use\u201d of the insured vehicle. The trial court held that appellee\u2019s insurance policy did not provide coverage and we agree.\nAppellee\u2019s insured, W. G. Dining, owned a camper which was primarily used as a recreational vehicle. The camper was parked in the carport adjoining the residence without the motor running or keys in the ignition. His son, Tanner, age 15, and a neighbor\u2019s son, Tommy Whaiquist, age 15, were playing inside the parked vehicle. Tommy picked up a loaded .22 caliber pistol from under some bed cover on a rear shelf of the camper, and playfully pointed it at Robert Wilson McClintock, age 13, another neighbor\u2019s son who was outside the camper. The weapon discharged, causing Robert\u2019s unintentional death. The gun was usually kept loaded in a tackle box in the camper. Robert\u2019s death resulted in a wrongful death action. Appellants Hartford and Royal had issued home owners insurance policies respectively to Whaiquist and Dining. Appellants negotiated a settlement for $30,000 to which appellee refused to contribute. Appellants then brought this action against appellee seeking a pro rata contribution in the amount of the settlement. The court found that appellants were not entitled to indemnity from appellee because the death was not \u201ccausally related\u201d to the operation of the automobile and \u201cdid not arise out of the ownership, maintenance or use\u201d of the vehicle as required by appellant\u2019s policy.\nAppellants assert this was error. They argue the fact the gun\u2019s owner, an insured, usually kept the gun in a tackle box in the camper demonstrates the causal relation with the use of the vehicle, and that \u201cthe actions and inactions of the insured, together with other facts and circumstances, create the totality of the circumstances where the injury occurred and in such manner and was a foreseeable consequence and within the language of appellee\u2019s policy.\u201d They agree that this court has not dealt with this fact situation. However, they analogize this case to our cases Owens v. Ocean Accident and Guaranty Corp., 194 Ark. 817, 109 S.W. 2d 928 (1937); and State Farm Mutual Ins. Co. v. LaSage, 262 Ark. 631, 559 S.W. 2d 702 (1978). In Owens we held that the insurer of an ambulance was liable for an injury caused to a woman being transported on a stretcher from her house to the ambulance, under the \u201cownership, maintenance, and use\u201d clause in the policy insuring the ambulance. There we held this constituted \u201can essential transaction . . . closely identified with the operation of\u201d the vehicle as an ambulance. In LaSage he was hit by a hit-and-run vehicle. He chased that vehicle and was injured when the vehicle stopped so suddenly that LaSage had to hit the vehicle or run into a ditch. Obviously, these cases are in-apposite to the case at bar.\nThere are several cases from other jurisdictions where the courts have dealt with situations similar to the one presented here; i.e., the question of an automobile insurer\u2019s liability for injuries caused by the accidental discharge of a gun by a person in the insured vehicle. Brenner v. Aetna Ins. Co., 445 P. 2d 474 (Ariz. 1968); American Liberty Ins. Co. v. Soules, 258 So. 2d 872 (Ala. 1972); U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Western Fire Ins. Co., 450 S.W. 2d 491 (Ky. 1970); and Raines v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 175 S.E. 2d 299 (N.C. 1970). These cases have uniformly held that an injury caused by the accidental discharge of a gun held by a person who is in a moving or motionless vehicle is not an injury \u201carising out of the use of\u201d the vehicle.\nIn an annotation on the subject in 89 A.L.R. 2d, it is stated at page 153:\nAll the cases agree that a causal relation or connection must exist between an accident or injury and the ownership, maintenance or use of a vehicle in order for the accident or injury to come within the meaning of the clause \u2018arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use\u2019 of a vehicle, and where such causal connection or coverage is absent coverage will be denied.\nWe are of the view that the accidental death of Robert Wilson McClintock cannot be said to be causally related to the use of the camper. As to causation, the accident could just as easily have occurred in a field, in the driveway, or in a hunting lodge. The fact the person discharging the pistol was inside the vehicle at the time of this accident does not make the injury one \u201carising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use\u201d of the camper. Consequently, appellee\u2019s policy provided no coverage in this situation.\nAffirmed.\nWe agree: Harris, C.J., and George Rose Smith and Howard, JJ.", "type": "majority", "author": "Frank Holt, Justice," } ], "attorneys": [ "William Stephen Crain, for appellants.", "Laser, Sharp, Haley, Young & Huckabay, P.A., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO. and ROYAL INDEMNITY CO. v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS. CO.\n78-177\n574 S.W. 2d 265\nOpinion delivered December 18, 1978\n(Division I)\nWilliam Stephen Crain, for appellants.\nLaser, Sharp, Haley, Young & Huckabay, P.A., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0743-01", "first_page_order": 773, "last_page_order": 775 }