404 F.2d 880 (5th Cir. 1969)

From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Rawls

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

May 19, 1969

404 F.2d 880 (5th Cir. 1969)

Summary

holding that insured's acts in hitting one car and then, seconds later, hitting another constituted two separate "accidents" for purposes of insurance policy

Summary of this case from State Farm Lloyds v. Williams

See 17 Summaries

Opinion

No. 26154.

December 17, 1968. Rehearing Denied May 19, 1969.

Charles W. Pittman, Charlie Luckie, Jr., John S. Matthews, Tampa, Fla., Macfarlane, Ferguson, Allison Kelly, Tampa, Fla., for appellant.

William C. Grimes, Clyde C. Goebel, Grimes, Grimes, Goebel, Parry Blue, Bradenton, Fla., for appellees.

Before THORNBERRY and DYER, Circuit Judges, and KEADY, District Judge.

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.

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.

Summaries of

Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Rawls

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

May 19, 1969

404 F.2d 880 (5th Cir. 1969)

holding that insured's acts in hitting one car and then, seconds later, hitting another constituted two separate "accidents" for purposes of insurance policy

Summary of this case from State Farm Lloyds v. Williams

finding two occurrences when the driver struck two cars, but gained control between the first and second impact

Summary of this case from Foremost Ins. Co. Grand Rapids Mich. v. Guillen

finding two separate "accidents" where the insured was involved in two collisions

Summary of this case from Ids Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Pickens

finding two separate occurrences where an insured collided with one automobile, knocked it off the highway and then the insured crossed the center line and collided head-on with another vehicle

Summary of this case from Canal Insurance Company v. Blankenship

finding that two accidents occurred for purposes of liability limit where the insured struck two vehicles with a five-second interval between the collisions while fleeing from law enforcement because there was no evidence that the insured lost control of his vehicle

Summary of this case from Hurst v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.

Summary of this case from Just v. Farmers Auto. Ins. Ass'n

In Rawls, for example, the time period—though short—was sufficient to allow the insured to regain control of his car, and thus, an intervening negligent act caused the insured to hit the second car.

Summary of this case from Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. Axis Ins. Co.

In Rawls, the impact between the insured's vehicle and the first vehicle was separated from its impact with the second vehicle by two to five seconds and thirty to three hundred feet.

Summary of this case from Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. Axis Ins. Co.

In Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Rawls, 404 F.2d 880 (5th Cir. 1968), the Fifth Circuit found two accidents where the driver, Bess, was traveling at a high rate of speed being pursued by two deputy sheriffs.

Summary of this case from Banner v. Raisin Valley, Inc.

In Rawls, the agreed facts established that the insured had collided first with the Rawls vehicle and then with a second vehicle, and that the two impacts were separated in both time and distance.

Summary of this case from Wright v. Turner

In Liberty Mut. Ins. C.O. v. Rawls, 404 F.2d 880 (5th Cir. 1969), the insured was fleeing from two deputy sheriffs at a high rate of speed.

Summary of this case from American Family Mut. v. Wilkins

In Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rawls, 404 F.2d 880 (5th Cir. 1968), the insured, while being pursued by policemen, hit one automobile, proceeded in the same direction for some seconds, and hit a second automobile.

Summary of this case from Slater v. United States Fidelity Guaranty Co.

In Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rawls, 404 F.2d 880 (5th Cir. 1968), the Court determined that there were two accidents where the insured tortfeasor, while being pursued at a high rate of speed by two deputy sheriffs, struck the left rear of one vehicle, continued on, veered across the centerline, and collided head-on with a second vehicle.

Summary of this case from Lloyd's Syndicate 1861 v. Darwin Nat'l Assurance Co.

In Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Rawls, 404 F.2d 880 (5th Cir. 1968), a motorist was traveling north on a public highway at a high rate of speed, being pursued by two deputy sheriffs.

Summary of this case from Washington v. McCauley

In Rawls, a northbound driver struck the rear section of another northbound automobile, knocking it off the highway; he continued forward, veered across the centerline, and collided head-on with a southbound auto.

Summary of this case from Illinois Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Szczepkowicz

In Rawls, the negligent driver left the first car and its injured passengers behind enroute to the second collision. Welter, on the other hand, was pinned beneath the Singer car during all of Singer's and Ihle's maneuvers. While Singer may have regained full control of his car each time he stopped, Welter was still trapped beneath it. Hence, Singer never regained a full measure of control over either the car's injury-inflicting potential or the situation in general.

Summary of this case from Welter v. Singer

Rehearing denied May 19, 1969

Summary of this case from Suh v. Dennis

Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Rawls

Summary

Opinion

Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Rawls

Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Rawls

Case Details

Citations

Citing Cases

Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Rawls

Summary

Opinion

Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Rawls

Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Rawls

Case Details

CitationsCopy Citation

Citing Cases

Citations