{ "id": 8186730, "name": "INTEGON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff v. BRANDON LEE WARD, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, FRANKIE J. PERRY; BRAGG AUTO & MUFFLER, INC. d/b/a BRAGG AUTO and MUFFLER SHOP; GEORGE REDIN SMITH; and THOMAS DWAYNE TAYLOR, Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "Integon National Insurance v. Ward", "decision_date": "2007-07-03", "docket_number": "No. COA06-1200", "first_page": "532", "last_page": "535", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "184 N.C. App. 532" } ], "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": "624 S.E.2d 620", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12634918 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "625" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/624/0620-01" ] }, { "cite": "612 S.E.2d 428", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12632828 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "430", "parenthetical": "citing Lowe v. Bradford, 305 N.C. 366, 369, 289 S.E.2d 363, 366 (1982)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/612/0428-01" ] }, { "cite": "461 S.E.2d 759", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "341 N.C. 420", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 793057, 793097, 793238, 793177, 793055 ], "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/341/0420-04", "/nc/341/0420-05", "/nc/341/0420-02", "/nc/341/0420-03", "/nc/341/0420-01" ] }, { "cite": "455 S.E.2d 892", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "894-95" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "118 N.C. App. 494", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11919346 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "497-98" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/118/0494-01" ] }, { "cite": "192 S.E.2d 840", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "282 N.C. 425", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565633, 8565602, 8565539, 8565699, 8565561 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/282/0425-04", "/nc/282/0425-03", "/nc/282/0425-01", "/nc/282/0425-05", "/nc/282/0425-02" ] }, { "cite": "192 S.E.2d 113", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "118" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "16 N.C. App. 194", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8549827 ], "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "198" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/16/0194-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.21", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(b)(2)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "538 S.E.2d 198", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "350 N.C. 834", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 132160, 132259, 131971, 131939, 132218 ], "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/350/0834-05", "/nc/350/0834-02", "/nc/350/0834-03", "/nc/350/0834-01", "/nc/350/0834-04" ] }, { "cite": "350 S.E.2d 66", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "69" }, { "page": "68" }, { "page": "69" }, { "page": "69" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "318 N.C. 534", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4732740 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "538-39" }, { "page": "538" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/318/0534-01" ] }, { "cite": "512 S.E.2d 764", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "765" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "132 N.C. App. 524", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11239009 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "525" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/132/0524-01" ] }, { "cite": "360 N.C. 280", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3790975 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "285" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/360/0280-01" ] }, { "cite": "289 S.E.2d 363", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "366" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "305 N.C. 366", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569908 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "369" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/305/0366-01" ] }, { "cite": "170 N.C. App. 422", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9005714 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "424", "parenthetical": "citing Lowe v. Bradford, 305 N.C. 366, 369, 289 S.E.2d 363, 366 (1982)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/170/0422-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 488, "char_count": 8808, "ocr_confidence": 0.751, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.207966869300525e-08, "percentile": 0.32825021844902924 }, "sha256": "2a9fa315dfbc796007475f3635f3ec3448f64842d7357c99de4f9a02967974c9", "simhash": "1:73b0d1ea057c2e7a", "word_count": 1450 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:54:59.559545+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judge LEVINSON concurs.", "Judge STEELMAN concurs in a separate opinion." ], "parties": [ "INTEGON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff v. BRANDON LEE WARD, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, FRANKIE J. PERRY; BRAGG AUTO & MUFFLER, INC. d/b/a BRAGG AUTO and MUFFLER SHOP; GEORGE REDIN SMITH; and THOMAS DWAYNE TAYLOR, Defendants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BRYANT, Judge.\nIntegon National Insurance Company (plaintiff) appeals from an order entered 25 May 2006 granting summary judgment in favor of Brandon Lee Ward (Ward) and denying, in part, plaintiff\u2019s Motion for Summary Judgment. We affirm the order of the trial court.\nFacts and Procedural History\nIn February 2002, Thomas Dwayne Taylor obtained a personal automobile liability insurance policy with Integon National Insurance Company for the policy period beginning 9 February 2002, and ending 9 August 2002. On 9 March 2002, Taylor, accompanied by Brandon Lee Ward, drove in Taylor\u2019s insured vehicle to the Bragg Auto and Muffler Shop in Spring Lake, North Carolina, to have some exhaust work done on Taylor\u2019s insured vehicle. Ward was two years old at the time. While they were waiting for the repair work to be completed on Taylor\u2019s car, Taylor and Ward walked around the premises of Bragg Auto..\nAs Taylor and Ward were walking back to the office, George Redin Smith, backed another vehicle out one of the maintenance bays and struck Ward, causing Ward bodily injuries. At the time of the accident, Smith was an employee of Bragg Auto and operated the automobile in the course and scope of his employment with Bragg Auto and with the knowledge and consent of Bragg Auto. The automobile driven by Smith at the time of the accident was not owned by Taylor and was not listed on his policy.\nOn 4 March 2005, Ward, by and through his Guardian ad Litem Frankie J. Perry, filed a lawsuit in Durham County Superior Court against Bragg Auto & Muffler, Inc. d/b/a Bragg Auto and Muffler Shop, George Redin Smith, and Thomas Dwayne Taylor. In that suit, Ward seeks to recover damages he allegedly sustained in the March 9 March 2002 accident, which he claims was caused by the negligence of Bragg Auto, Smith, and Taylor. On 11 August 2005, plaintiff filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment seeking a determination of coverage for Taylor, its insured, under his personal automobile liability insurance policy. On 1 May 2006, plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Ward similarly filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on 8 May 2006. By Order entered 25 May 2006, the trial court granted Ward\u2019s Motion for Summary Judgment and denied plaintiff\u2019s Motion for Summary Judgment, in part. The trial court held that the automobile insurance policy issued to Taylor by plaintiff does not provide medical payments coverage for Ward; however the policy does provide liability coverage to Taylor for the claims raised by Ward against Taylor in the suit currently pending in Durham County. Plaintiff appeals.\nPlaintiff raises the issue of whether the trial court erred in denying, in part, its motion for summary judgment. Under Rule 56(c) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment \u201cshall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (2005). \u201cThe burden is upon the moving party to show that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.\u201d McGuire v. Draughon, 170 N.C. App. 422, 424, 612 S.E.2d 428, 430 (2005) (citing Lowe v. Bradford, 305 N.C. 366, 369, 289 S.E.2d 363, 366 (1982)). On appeal, this Court reviews an order granting summary judgment de novo. McCutchen v. McGutchen, 360 N.C. 280, 285, 624 S.E.2d 620, 625 (2006).\nPlaintiff argues the trial court erred in denying its motion for summary judgment because there is no liability coverage under the terms and conditions of Taylor\u2019s insurance policy for the claims raised by Ward against Taylor. Plaintiff contends the accident in which Ward was injured did not arise out of the ownership, maintenance or use of Taylor\u2019s vehicle insured with plaintiff. We disagree.\n\u201c[I]t is well established in North Carolina that as a matter of law the provisions of the Financial Responsibility Act are written into every automobile liability policy.\u201d Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Webb, 132 N.C. App. 524, 525, 512 S.E.2d 764, 765 (citing State Capital Ins. Co. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 318 N.C. 534, 538-39, 350 S.E.2d 66, 69 (1986)), disc. review denied, 350 N.C. 834, 538 S.E.2d 198 (1999). Pursuant to the Financial Responsibility Act, an owner\u2019s policy of liability insurance, \u201c[s]hall insure the. person named therein . . . against loss from the liability imposed by law for damages arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of such motor vehicle[.]\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 20-279.21(b)(2) (2005).\nOur Supreme Court has further held that \u201cprovisions of insurance policies and compulsory insurance statutes which extend coverage must be construed liberally so as to provide coverage, whenever possible by reasonable construction.\u201d State Capital Ins. Co., 318 N.C. at 538, 350 S.E.2d at 68. The Court held:\nThe words \u2018arising out of\u2019 are not words of narrow and specific limitation but are broad, general, and comprehensive terms affecting broad coverage. They are intended to, and do, afford protection to the insured against liability imposed upon him for all damages caused by acts done in connection with or arising out of such use. They are words of much broader significance than \u2018caused by.\u2019 They are ordinarily understood to mean . . . \u2018incident to,\u2019 or \u2018having connection with\u2019 the use of the automobilef.]\nId. at 539, 350 S.E.2d at 69 (quoting Fidelity & Cas. Co. of N.Y. v. N.C. Farm, Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 16 N.C. App. 194, 198, 192 S.E.2d 113, 118, cert. denied, 282 N.C. 425, 192 S.E.2d 840 (1972)). \u201c[T]he test for determining whether an automobile liability policy provides coverage for an accident is not whether the automobile was a proximate cause of the accident. Instead, the test is whether there is a causal connection between the use of the automobile and the accident.\u201d Id. at 539-40, 350 S.E.2d at 69.\nHere, Taylor drove his insured vehicle to Bragg Auto for some maintenance work. Ward accompanied Taylor and they were both walking around the repair shop while waiting for the repairs to be completed. While walking back to the office of the repair shop, Ward was struck by a vehicle backing out of a repair bay and driven by an employee of Bragg Auto. While the use of Taylor\u2019s vehicle cannot be said to have been the direct cause of Ward\u2019s injuries, a sufficient causal connection between the use and the injuries does exist. See Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Davis, 118 N.C. App. 494, 497-98, 455 S.E.2d 892, 894-95, (holding an automobile liability insurance policy covered damages arising out of the \u201cuse\u201d of a vehicle where the insured driver parked across the street from a store, and a six-year-old child who was a passenger in the insured vehicle was subsequently stuck by another vehicle while attempting to cross the road), disc, review denied, 341 N.C. 420, 461 S.E.2d 759 (1995). Thus, Taylor\u2019s automobile liability insurance policy with plaintiff does provide liability coverage for the claims raised by Ward against Taylor in the lawsuit currently pending in Durham County.\nAffirmed.\nJudge LEVINSON concurs.\nJudge STEELMAN concurs in a separate opinion.", "type": "majority", "author": "BRYANT, Judge." }, { "text": "STEELMAN, Judge,\nconcurring in separate opinion.\nI concur in the majority opinion, but write separately to emphasize that our holding that Integon\u2019s policy provides coverage in no way should be construed to imply that Taylor was negligent in causing the injuries to the plaintiff.", "type": "concurrence", "author": "STEELMAN, Judge," } ], "attorneys": [ "Bennett & Guthrie, P.L.L.G., by Rodney A. Guthrie, Joshua H. Bennett, and Jason P. Burton, for plaintiff-appellant.", "Pulley, Watson, King & Lischer, P.A., by Guy W. Crabtree, for defendant-appellees Brandon Lee Ward and Frankie J. Perry." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "INTEGON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff v. BRANDON LEE WARD, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, FRANKIE J. PERRY; BRAGG AUTO & MUFFLER, INC. d/b/a BRAGG AUTO and MUFFLER SHOP; GEORGE REDIN SMITH; and THOMAS DWAYNE TAYLOR, Defendants\nNo. COA06-1200\n(Filed 3 July 2007)\nInsurance;\u2014 automobile \u2014 repair shop \u2014 injury to child \u2014 coverage under customer\u2019s liability policy\nA minor child\u2019s injuries at an automobile repair shop when an employee of the shop backed a vehicle into the child as the child and a customer were walking to the office while waiting for the customer\u2019s automobile to be repaired arose out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the customer\u2019s automobile so that the customer\u2019s automobile liability policy provided coverage for the customer\u2019s alleged liability for the child\u2019s injuries.\nJudge Steelman concurring.\nAppeal by plaintiff from a judgment entered 25 May 2006 by Judge Richard W. Stone in Forsyth County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 29 March 2007.\nBennett & Guthrie, P.L.L.G., by Rodney A. Guthrie, Joshua H. Bennett, and Jason P. Burton, for plaintiff-appellant.\nPulley, Watson, King & Lischer, P.A., by Guy W. Crabtree, for defendant-appellees Brandon Lee Ward and Frankie J. Perry." }, "file_name": "0532-01", "first_page_order": 564, "last_page_order": 567 }