Parker v. Atlas Mutual Insurance Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Parker v. Atlas Mutual Insurance Co.

506 So. 2d 475, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1150, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7995

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 5, 1987

DocketNo. BK-53

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 506 So. 2d 475 (Parker v. Atlas Mutual Insurance Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Parker v. Atlas Mutual Insurance Co., 506 So. 2d 475, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1150, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7995 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal from a summary judgment entered in favor of Atlas Mutual Insurance Company (Atlas) based on the trial court’s determination that there was not a sufficient nexus between the use of the automobile insured by Atlas and Mr. Parker’s injuries so as to warrant the imposition of personal injury protection (PIP) benefits. The undisputed facts concerning the incident giving rise to the claim are that Mr. Parker, a passenger in the automobile owned by his girlfriend, was struck by a rock thrown through the front window of the car by an unknown assailant. At the time of the accident, the vehicle ignition was turned off, the car was located in the Jax Liquor Store parking lot, and Parker and his girlfriend were seated in the car mixing and consuming alcoholic beverages. Mr. Parker brought suit on the insurance policy issued to him by Atlas for injuries arising out of the “ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle.” § 627.736(1), Fla.Stat.

Having reviewed the record before us and pertinent decisions, we find that the trial court did not err in entering the summary judgment below. Feltner v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, 336 So.2d 142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Hernandez v. Protective Casualty Insurance Company, 473 So.2d 1241, 1243 (Fla.1985); Allstate Insurance Company v. Famiglet-ti, 459 So.2d 1149 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); see Fleming v. Hill, 501 So.2d 715 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), and cases cited therein. In the instant case, the automobile was merely the physical situs of the injury that occurred to Mr. Parker, and the injury was not one related or incidental to the use of the vehicle.

Accordingly, the judgment below is affirmed.

BOOTH, C.J., and MILLS, J., concur. WENTWORTH, J., dissents without written opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal from a summary judgment entered in favor of Atlas Mutual Insurance Company (Atlas) based on the trial court’s determination that there was not a sufficient nexus between the use of the automobile insured by Atlas and Mr. Parker’s injuries so as to warrant the imposition of personal injury protection (PIP) benefits. The undisputed facts concerning the incident giving rise to the claim are that Mr. Parker, a passenger in the automobile owned by his girlfriend, was struck by a rock thrown through the front window of the car by an unknown assailant. At the time of the accident, the vehicle ignition was turned off, the car was located in the Jax Liquor Store parking lot, and Parker and his girlfriend were seated in the car mixing and consuming alcoholic beverages. Mr. Parker brought suit on the insurance policy issued to him by Atlas for injuries arising out of the “ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle.” § 627.736(1), Fla.Stat.

Having reviewed the record before us and pertinent decisions, we find that the trial court did not err in entering the summary judgment below. Feltner v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, 336 So.2d 142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Hernandez v. Protective Casualty Insurance Company, 473 So.2d 1241, 1243 (Fla.1985); Allstate Insurance Company v. Famiglet-ti, 459 So.2d 1149 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); see Fleming v. Hill, 501 So.2d 715 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), and cases cited therein. In the instant case, the automobile was merely the physical situs of the injury that occurred to Mr. Parker, and the injury was not one related or incidental to the use of the vehicle.

Accordingly, the judgment below is affirmed.

BOOTH, C.J., and MILLS, J., concur. WENTWORTH, J., dissents without written opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

506 So. 2d 475, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1150, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 7995, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parker-v-atlas-mutual-insurance-co-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack