From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

King v. St. Paul Fire Casualty Company

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Nov 18, 1991
412 S.E.2d 614 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991)

Opinion

A91A1410.

DECIDED NOVEMBER 18, 1991.

Action on policy. DeKalb Superior Court. Before Judge Mallis.

Dailey Groover, Lewis M. Groover, Jr., for appellant.

Tittsworth Grabbe, Michael W. Tittsworth, for appellee.


The appellant's husband was shot and killed by robbers in the parking lot of a laundry and dry cleaning establishment which he operated, as he was attempting to enter his van with a money bag containing the day's receipts from the business. The appellee insurer had issued a policy of motor vehicle accident insurance to the appellant and her husband which provided $50,000 in no-fault, or personal injury protection, coverage. The appellant filed the present action seeking to recover these benefits, as well as to recover a bad-faith penalty, attorney fees and punitive damages based on the appellee's refusal to pay the claim. The case is before us on appeal from an order granting summary judgment to the appellee-insurer.

Under OCGA § 33-34-7 (a) (1) as it existed at the time of the accident, personal injury protection benefits were required to be paid to an insured "without regard to fault for economic loss resulting from: (1) Accidental bodily injury sustained . . . by the insured . . . while occupying any motor vehicle. . . ." Ga. L. 1974, pp. 113, 120, § 7 (repealed by Ga. L. 1991, pp. 1608, 1621, § 1.12, effective October 1, 1991). The term "occupying" was defined by former OCGA § 33-34-2 (8) as meaning "to be in or upon a motor vehicle or engaged in the immediate act of entering into or alighting from the motor vehicle." For the purposes of this appeal, there is no question that the decedent was engaged in the immediate act of entering his van at the time he was killed.

The term, "accidental bodily injury," was defined by former OCGA § 33-34-2 (1) as "bodily injury arising out of the operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle which is accidental as to the person claiming basic no-fault benefits. . . ." This court has held that "almost any causal connection or relationship will do" to establish that an injury arose out of the operation, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle within the contemplation of this statute. Southeastern Fidelity Ins. Co. v. Stevens, 142 Ga. App. 562, 563-564 ( 236 S.E.2d 550) (1977). However, we have also held that a no-fault insurer is not required to pay benefits for injuries sustained by an insured in a criminal assault merely because the assault occurred while the insured was occupying a motor vehicle. See First Financial Ins. Co. v. Rainey, 195 Ga. App. 655, 657 ( 394 S.E.2d 774) (1990), and cases cited therein. 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." Id. at 701. Similarly, in Davis v. Criterion Ins. Co., 179 Ga. App. 235 ( 345 S.E.2d 913) (1986), we held that no-fault benefits were not payable for the death of a bus driver who was shot and killed by a disturbed passenger who had commandeered the vehicle. There obviously was more of a connection between the vehicles and the shootings in those two cases than in the present case. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in granting the appellee's motion for summary judgment.

Judgment affirmed. Carley, P. J., and Beasley, J., concur.

DECIDED NOVEMBER 18, 1991.


Summaries of

King v. St. Paul Fire Casualty Company

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Nov 18, 1991
412 S.E.2d 614 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991)
Case details for

King v. St. Paul Fire Casualty Company

Case Details

Full title:KING v. ST. PAUL FIRE CASUALTY COMPANY

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Nov 18, 1991

Citations

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

Citing Cases

USAA Property & Casualty Insurance v. Wilbur

Westberry v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 179 Ga. App. 700, 701 ( 347 S.E.2d 688) (1986). See also King v.…

Colonial Ins. Co. v. Lumpkin

Velthouse, 751 P.2d at 3. This holding is consistent with our decisions in King v. St. Paul Fire c. Co., 201…