{ "id": 9081569, "name": "INTEGON SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff v. JACKIE McCOLLUM AUSTIN, Administratrix of the Estate of AUDREY SIMONE AUSTIN, Defendant", "name_abbreviation": "Integon Specialty Insurance v. Austin", "decision_date": "2002-07-16", "docket_number": "No. COA01-613", "first_page": "593", "last_page": "596", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "151 N.C. App. 593" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "512 S.E.2d 764", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "765" }, { "page": "766", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "132 N.C. App. 524", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11239009 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "526" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/132/0524-01" ] }, { "cite": "350 S.E.2d 66", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "318 N.C. 534", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4732740 ], "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/318/0534-01" ] }, { "cite": "302 S.E.2d 302", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "person outside vehicle injured by intentional discharge of gun by person inside vehicle not covered by vehicle's insurer" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "62 N.C. App. 127", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8520854 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "person outside vehicle injured by intentional discharge of gun by person inside vehicle not covered by vehicle's insurer" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/62/0127-01" ] }, { "cite": "460 S.E.2d 201", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "203", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "page": "203", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "119 N.C. App. 787", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11917796 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "790" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/119/0787-01" ] }, { "cite": "373 S.E.2d 887", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "888" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "92 N.C. App. 211", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526662 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "213" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/92/0211-01" ] }, { "cite": "449 S.E.2d 240", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "242" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "116 N.C. App. 663", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525419 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "665" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/116/0663-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 457, "char_count": 7993, "ocr_confidence": 0.736, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.3728075846420705e-07, "percentile": 0.7959516172564501 }, "sha256": "bd2a65ad98c193fe9dd684511537cdc208b117929d18f3dbcc27f6fd7186b68d", "simhash": "1:908c6cf08c1e4152", "word_count": 1302 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:47:19.620477+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges McGEE and TYSON concur." ], "parties": [ "INTEGON SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff v. JACKIE McCOLLUM AUSTIN, Administratrix of the Estate of AUDREY SIMONE AUSTIN, Defendant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "EAGLES, Chief Judge.\nOn 14 December 1997, Gregory Austin (Gregory) was driving a 1994 Mazda Prot\u00e9g\u00e9 near the intersection of Randleman Road and Interstate 85 in Greensboro, North Carolina. Gregory had obtained possession of the car in return for $25.00 rock cocaine. Audrey Austin (Audrey) was a passenger in the Mazda and was seated behind Gregory. As Gregory drove, he \u201cexchanged words with the driver of another car\u201d in the next lane. Gregory thought that one or more of the occupants of the other car had a gun. Acting on this belief, Gregory held his handgun out the driver\u2019s side window of the Mazda and fired once in the direction of the other car. As Gregory tried to fire a second time, his gun jammed. Gregory resolved the gun\u2019s jammed condition and then fired a second time. The second bullet ricocheted off the other car and then reentered the back portion of the Mazda Prot\u00e9g\u00e9 killing Audrey. As a result of the shooting, Gregory pleaded guilty to second-degree murder.\nJackie McCollum Austin, Audrey\u2019s mother, filed a civil action against Gregory. Ms. Austin also brought an uninsured motorist claim against her insurer, Integon, for the wrongful death of her daughter.\nMs. Austin\u2019s policy states in relevant part:\nWe will pay compensatory damages which an insured is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle because of:\n(1) Bodily injury sustained by an insured and caused by an accident....\nThe owner\u2019s or operator\u2019s liability for these damages must arise out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the uninsured motor vehicle.\nIntegon (plaintiff) filed a declaratory judgment action on 2 March 2000 alleging that coverage was not available to Ms. Austin under her uninsured motorist policy because the damages sought by Ms. Austin did not arise out of the operation, maintenance, or use of an uninsured motor vehicle. Ms. Austin (defendant) answered on 18 April 2000. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on 19 December 2000. On 29 January 2001, the Honorable A. Moses Massey granted plaintiff\u2019s motion for summary judgment. Defendant appeals.\nWhen determining whether a movant is entitled to summary judgment, this Court applies a two-part analysis of whether: (1) the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Davis v. Town of Southern Pines, 116 N.C. App. 663, 665, 449 S.E.2d 240, 242 (1994). On appeal, this Court must view the record in the light most favorable to the non-movant and draw all reasonable inferences in the non-movant\u2019s favor. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Welch, 92 N.C. App. 211, 213, 373 S.E.2d 887, 888 (1988).\nHere, defendant contends that a genuine issue of material fact exists relating to whether the discharge of Gregory\u2019s gun was accidental. Defendant argues that Gregory\u2019s operation of a vehicle during which his gun accidentally discharged created a causal connection between the use of the vehicle and the accidental gun discharge that in turn spawned a viable claim for uninsured motorist coverage. We disagree.\nIn Scales v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 119 N.C. App. 787, 460 S.E.2d 201 (1995), this Court considered whether an insured\u2019s general automobile liability policy issued by State Farm covered an intentional shooting from the insured vehicle. The Scales Court held:\nIn order for an injury to be compensable, there must be a causal connection between the use of the vehicle and the injury. This connection is shown if the injury is the natural and reasonable consequence of the vehicle\u2019s use. However, an injury is not a \u201cnatural and reasonable consequence of the use\u201d of the vehicle if the injury is the result of something \u201cwholly disassociated from, independent of, and remote from\u201d the vehicle\u2019s normal use. Clearly, an automobile chase with guns blazing is not a regular and normal use of a vehicle.\nAn intentional shooting such as occurred in this case is not a compensable act arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of an insured vehicle.\nId. at 790, 460 S.E.2d at 203 (citations omitted). See also Wall v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 62 N.C. App. 127, 302 S.E.2d 302, (1983) (person outside vehicle injured by intentional discharge of gun by person inside vehicle not covered by vehicle\u2019s insurer). Cf. State Capital Ins. Co. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 318 N.C. 534, 350 S.E.2d 66 (1986) (holding that \u201c[s]ince the transportation and unloading of firearms are ordinary and customary uses of a motor vehicle, and the injury-causing accident here resulted from the unloading of the transported rifle, such injuries were a natural and reasonable incident or consequence of the use of the motor vehicle\u201d).\nHere, Gregory filed an affidavit wherein he stated that he \u201cheld the handgun out the window and it accidentally discharged after jamming\u201d and that he \u201cdid not intend to harm the passenger, Audrey Simone Austin.\u201d Even accepting as true Gregory\u2019s claim that the discharge of the gun was accidental, summary judgment is still proper. Intentionally pointing a gun out the window of a moving automobile towards the occupants of another moving automobile does not constitute normal or ordinary use of a motor vehicle. The fact that the gun may have accidentally discharged after it jammed while Gregory was attempting to fire it is irrelevant. Gregory\u2019s pointing of the gun violated N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-34, which states: \u201cIf any person shall point any gun or pistol at any person, either in fun or otherwise, whether such gun or pistol be loaded or not loaded, he shall be guilty of a Class A1 misdemeanor.\u201d\nIn this instance, \u201cthe automobile was merely the situs of the assault.\u201d See Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Webb, 132 N.C. App. 524, 526, 512 S.E.2d 764, 765 (1999). The death of Audrey Austin \u201cresulted from something wholly disassociated from, independent of, and remote from the [Mazda\u2019s] normal use.\u201d Id. at 526-27, 512 S.E.2d at 766 (citations omitted). Because Audrey Austin\u2019s death was the result of Gregory\u2019s intentional pointing of the gun out the window of the Mazda Prot\u00e9g\u00e9 and the subsequent discharge of the gun, we hold that Audrey Austin\u2019s death was not the natural and reasonable consequence of the use of the Mazda Prot\u00e9g\u00e9 but was the result of something \u201c \u2018wholly disassociated from, independent of, and remote from\u2019 the vehicle\u2019s normal use.\u201d Scales, 119 N.C. App. at 790, 460 S.E.2d at 203 (citation omitted). Accordingly, we hold that defendant\u2019s uninsured motorist policy did not provide coverage for the wrongful death of defendant\u2019s daughter, Audrey Austin. The trial court\u2019s entry of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nJudges McGEE and TYSON concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "EAGLES, Chief Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Frazier & Frazier, L.L.P., by Torin L. Fury, for plaintiff - appellee.", "Gray, Newell, Johnson & Blackmon, L.L.P., by Mark V.L. Gray, for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "INTEGON SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff v. JACKIE McCOLLUM AUSTIN, Administratrix of the Estate of AUDREY SIMONE AUSTIN, Defendant\nNo. COA01-613\n(Filed 16 July 2002)\nInsurance\u2014 uninsured motorist coverage \u2014 normal or ordinary use of motor vehicle \u2014 shooting at another car\nThe trial court correctly granted summary judgment for plaintiff insurer in a declaratory judgment action to determine coverage under an uninsured motorist policy where defendant\u2019s daughter (Audrey) was a passenger in a car when the driver (Gregory) held a gun out his window, the gun discharged, and Audrey was killed by the ricochet. Even accepting Gregory\u2019s claim that the discharge was accidental, intentionally pointing a gun out the window of a moving automobile towards the occupants of another moving automobile does not constitute normal or ordinary use of a motor vehicle.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 29 January 2001 by Judge A. Moses Massey in Guilford County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 20 May 2002.\nFrazier & Frazier, L.L.P., by Torin L. Fury, for plaintiff - appellee.\nGray, Newell, Johnson & Blackmon, L.L.P., by Mark V.L. Gray, for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0593-01", "first_page_order": 623, "last_page_order": 626 }