Bennett v. Nat. Union Fire c. Co.

4 Citing cases

  1. First Financial v. Rainey

    195 Ga. App. 655 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 9 times

    In support of its contention that a connection did not exist in this case between the injuries and the operation, maintenance or use of the vehicle, the appellant relies on a series of cases disallowing benefits to or on account of persons who were criminally assaulted while occupying an insured vehicle. See Davis v. Criterion Ins. Co., 179 Ga. App. 235 ( 345 S.E.2d 913) (1986); Weeks v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 175 Ga. App. 725 ( 334 S.E.2d 325) (1985); Bennett v. Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co., 170 Ga. App. 829 ( 318 S.E.2d 670) (1984); Washington v. Hartford Acc. c. Co., 161 Ga. App. 431 ( 288 S.E.2d 343) (1982); Westberry v.State Farm c. Ins. Co., 179 Ga. App. 700 ( 347 S.E.2d 688) (1986). With the exception of Weeks, the controlling factor in each of these cases clearly was the intentional and deliberate nature of the assault, "'which took place in the vehicle simply because that is where the (victims) happened to be'" at the time.

  2. King v. St. Paul Fire Casualty Company

    412 S.E.2d 614 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 3 times

    With specific reference to shootings, we have held that "[t]here must be more of a connection between the use of the vehicle and the discharge of the firearm and the resulting injury than mere presence in the vehicle when the injury was sustained." Bennett v. Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co., 170 Ga. App. 829, 830-831 ( 318 S.E.2d 670) (1984). In Westberry v. State Farm c. Ins. Co., 179 Ga. App. 700 ( 347 S.E.2d 688) (1986), this court held that no-fault benefits were not payable for the death of a taxi driver who was shot and killed by a robber while seated in the front seat of his taxi, even though "in all probability [the driver] was robbed for the purpose of taking the amount of money he had accumulated for the use of his vehicle as a taxi."

  3. Westberry v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.

    179 Ga. App. 700 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 14 times
    In Westberry v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 179 Ga.App. 700, 347 S.E.2d 688 (1986), the court found the shooting death of a taxi-driver during a robbery while he was seated in his taxi did not arise out of the taxi's use, despite likely intent to steal the taxi's proceeds.

    In cases in which an issue is presented as to whether a gunshot wound sustained by an insured in a motor vehicle can be considered an injury arising out of the use of the vehicle, the general rule is set forth in Southeastern Fidelity Ins. Co. v. Stevens, 142 Ga. App. 562, 564 ( 236 S.E.2d 550), that "where a connection appears between the 'use' of the vehicle and the discharge of the firearm and resulting injury such as to render it more likely that the one grew out of the other, it comes within the coverage defined." This court considered the same issue in Bennett v. Nat. Union Fire c. Ins. Co., 170 Ga. App. 829 ( 318 S.E.2d 670), in which the insured and his wife were seated in their moving automobile and a third party intentionally shot at them from outside the car. We affirmed summary judgment for the insurer, holding that to reach a finding that the injury arose out of the "operation, maintenance or use of the motor vehicle . . . [t]here must be more of a connection between the use of the vehicle and the discharge of the firearm and the resulting injury than mere presence in the vehicle when the injury was sustained."

  4. Davis v. Criterion Ins. Co.

    179 Ga. App. 235 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 8 times
    Discussing numerous cases concerning assaults on buses

    "There must be more of a connection between the use of the vehicle . . . and the resulting injury than mere presence in the vehicle when the injury was sustained." Bennett v. Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co., 170 Ga. App. 829, 830-831 ( 318 S.E.2d 670) (1984). In Washington v. Hartford Accident c. Co., 161 Ga. App. 431 ( 288 S.E.2d 343) (1982) and in Hicks v. Walker County School Dist., 172 Ga. App. 428 ( 323 S.E.2d 231) (1984), we held that an injury resulting from an intentional assault upon a bus passenger did not arise out of the operation, maintenance or use of the bus.