Fortune Insurance Company v. Ferreiro

Fortune Ins. Co. v. Ferreiro, 458 So. 2d 834 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida · State Appellate Courts
Decided: November 6, 1984
Docket: No. 84-537
Judges: Hendry, Hubbart and Baskin
Citations: 458 So. 2d 8349 Fla. L. Weekly 23211984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15790

Cited by 13 2 descriptions by later courts

Opinion

458 So.2d 834 (1984)

FORTUNE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant,

Lazaro FERREIRO, Appellee.

No. 84-537.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

November 6, 1984.

Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder & Carson and Sally R. Doerner and Robert J. Strunin, Miami, for appellant.

Goldfarb & Gold and Robert H. Yaffe, Miami, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, HUBBART and BASKIN, JJ.

HENDRY, Judge.

Fortune Insurance Company appeals from a final summary judgment in favor of the insured in an action brought to compel arbitration on the uninsured motorist coverage portion of an automobile insurance policy. We affirm.

Appellee was a passenger in a truck owned by his employer when he was shot in the hand by the driver of a car which was apparently attempting to force the truck off the road. The assailant was not apprehended. Appellee thereafter brought a declaratory judgment action to compel arbitration of his uninsured motorist claim pursuant to Chapter 87, Florida Statutes (1983). Appellant defended on the premise that the incident was not the result of "an accident arising out of the use, maintenance or operation of a motor vehicle." Both parties moved for summary judgment.

We find that our affirmance is compelled by the decision in Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Novak, 453 So.2d 1116 (Fla. 1984), in which the Florida Supreme Court found that personal injury protection benefits were available to an insured who was shot after refusing to give the assailant a ride. In so holding the court stated:

It is well settled that "arising out of" does not mean "proximately caused by," but has a much broader meaning. All that is required is some nexus between the motor vehicle and the injury ... The clause, "arising out of the use of a motor vehicle," is framed in such general, comprehensive terms in order to express the intent to effect broad coverage. Such terms should be construed liberally because *835 their function is to extend coverage broadly.

Id. at 1119 (citations omitted). Appellee clearly would be eligible for uninsured motorist benefits if the assailant had succeeded in forcing his truck off the road, thereby injuring him. It would be anomalous indeed to find no coverage where the assailant effected appellee's injury but with a different instrumentality, i.e., a gun.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

(claimant's gunshot wound inflicted by automobile driver who attempted to force off road truck in which claimant was passenger was accident which fell within UM coverage)

Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Race, 508 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)
(claimant shot by driver of vehicle attempting to force his truck off road)

Pena v. Allstate Ins. Co., 463 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

Cited by 13 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Pena v. Allstate Ins. Co.463 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)
Wausau Underwriters Insurance v. Howser727 F. Supp. 999 (D.S.C. 1990)
Taylor v. Phoenix Ins. Co.622 So. 2d 506 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)
General Accident Insurance Co. of America v. Olivier574 A.2d 1240 (R.I. 1990)
Wausau Underwriters Insurance v. Howser422 S.E.2d 106 (S.C. 1992)
Kessler v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co.573 So. 2d 476 (La. 1991)

Most recent

Allstate Insurance v. Ye Jin Jun712 So. 2d 415 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998) · Dissent
Spradlin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.650 So. 2d 1383 (Miss. 1995)
Taylor v. Phoenix Ins. Co.622 So. 2d 506 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)
Worldwide Underwriters Insurance v. Jackson855 P.2d 166 (Or. Ct. App. 1993)
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Spotten610 N.E.2d 299 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993)
Wausau Underwriters Insurance v. Howser422 S.E.2d 106 (S.C. 1992)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

Depth	Case	Cited by
	GOV. Employees INS. Co. v. Novak, 453 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 1984)	100

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list