Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Lewis C. Rawls
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Appellant, v. Lewis C. RAWLS Et Al., Appellees
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
Appellant, the automobile liability insurance carrier of Clinton Bess, was garnished by writ issuing at instance of appellees to pay, subject to policy limits, a judgment obtained by appellees in state court against Bess. The single question presented is whether the insured had one accident or two accidents, as he was proceeding north upon a public highway at a very high rate of speed, being pursued by two deputy sheriffs. Bess collided with the left rear of a northbound automobile in which appellees were riding and knocked it off the highway to the right. His automobile continued northerly, veering across the centerline, and collided head-on with a southbound automobile occupied by the Davis family.
Appellant, having paid $20,000 to settle the Davis claims, now contends that there is nothing left to apply to the judgment obtained by appellees under its insurance policy restricting coverage to $20,000 as “the total limit of the company’s liability * * * as the result of any one accident”. Appellant concedes that if there were two accidents, the judgment of the district court should be affirmed. It is also conceded, in view of the stipulated facts, that the question was properly one for summary judgment. According to the agreed facts, the impact between the Bess automobile and the Rawls automobile was separated from the impact between the Bess automobile and the Davis automobile by both time and distance. These impacts occurred 2 to 5 seconds apart and 30 to 300 feet apart. There were two distinct collisions, or more than a single sudden collision. There is no evidence that the Bess automobile went out of control after striking the rear end of appellees’ automobile. On the contrary, the only reasonable inference is that Bess had control of his vehicle after the initial collision.
*881 The district court correctly held upon these facts that there were, in law, two accidents. Such a conclusion is to be here reached under either the “causation theory” applied by this Court in Saint Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Rutland, 225 F.2d 689 (5 Cir. 1955), determining an event from the standpoint of conduct forming the causative act, or the “effect theory”, alluded to in Anchor Casualty Co. v. McCaleb, 178 F.2d 322 (5 Cir. 1949), when an event is judged from the point of view of a person sustaining injury.
The judgment of the district court must be and is affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 4 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(finding two occurrences when the driver struck two cars, but gained control 19 between the first and second impact)
-
(where the insured's automobile collided with rear of an automobile in which the plaintiffs were riding and two to five seconds later the insured's automobile collided with a second automobile, there were two distinct "accidents" pursuant to the policy)
Cited by 36 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Courts of Appeals1
- Federal District Courts7
- State Highest Courts7
- State Appellate Courts19
- State Trial Courts2
Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
- Foremost Insurance Company Grand Rapids Michigan v. Guillen
- FLANIA BELT v. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
- Jerald Thomas McClard v. Commonwealth of Virginia
- Lloyd's Syndicate 1861 v. Darwin Nat'l Assurance Co.
- Hurst v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Co.
- Marlin Lee Just, Noelle Marie Marchant Hughes, and Travis Clinton Hughes v. Farmers Automobile Insurance Association D/B/A Pekin Insurance
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.