United Services Automobile Ass'n v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

75 A.D.2d 1022, 429 N.Y.S.2d 508, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11706
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 23, 1980
StatusPublished
Cited by33 cases

This text of 75 A.D.2d 1022 (United Services Automobile Ass'n v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United Services Automobile Ass'n v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 75 A.D.2d 1022, 429 N.Y.S.2d 508, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11706 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, with costs to plaintiff, United’s motion granted and judgment entered in its favor in accordance with the following memorandum: The insured volunteered the use of her own car to transport six children including her son on a field trip from St. Rose of Lima School to the Buffalo Museum of Science. While en route the boys were laughing and talking but there is no proof of roughhousing. At one point she heard her son say "cut it out” and she turned and told the boys to stop. One of the boys then said that another boy had been hit in the eye with a wadded up tinfoil gum wrapper used as a "spit ball”. The plaintiff whose eye was injured by this incident was a 12-year-old seventh grader. The family of the injured infant commenced suit against several defendants, including the insured. In her case, the claim is based on alleged negligent supervision and control. Thereafter, a declaratory judgment action was commenced and the plaintiff and defendant insurance carriers each moved for summary judgment, asserting that the other owed a duty to defend the insured in the negligence action. Plaintiff-appellant United Services Automobile Association (United) is the insured’s automobile liability carrier, and defendant-respondent Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (Aetna) is the insured’s homeowners’ liability carrier. We reverse the order at Special Term which denied summary judgment to either party. This occurrence did not arise out of the "ownership, maintenance or use” of the motor vehicle. Not every injury occurring in or near a motor vehicle is covered by the phrase "use or operation”. The accident must be connected with the use of an automobile qua automobile (Reisinger v Allstate Ins. Co., 58 AD2d 1028, affd 44 NY2d 881). Where the operation or driving function of an automobile or the condition of the vehicle itself is not the proximate cause of the injury, the occurrence does not arise out of its use or operation (McConnell v Fireman’s Fund Amer. Ins. Co., 49 AD2d 676, 677; see Brown v Allstate Ins. Co., 69 AD2d 1013; Walters v Government Employees Ins. Co., 66 AD2d 779; Nassau County Ch. of Assn. for Help of Retarded Children v Insurance Co. of North Amer., 59 AD2d 525). The fact that the plaintiff was injured by an assault while riding as a passenger does not bring the claim within coverage since the use of the motor vehicle must be the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries to come within the ambit of the "use or operation” clause (McConnell v Fireman’s Fund Amer. Ins. Co., supra; Matter of Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth. [Gholson], 71 AD2d 1004). Aetna’s argument that it has no duty to defend its insured is based solely on the argument that there is coverage by United. Coverage "E” of the Aetna policy also provides personal liability insurance. Aetna’s argument that its policy does not provide coverage is based on an exclusion for bodily injury "arising out of the ownership, maintenance, operation, use * * * 0f * * * any motor vehicle.” Aetna as the homeowners’ carrier understandably does not want to provide coverage already specifically covered by the auto carrier. However, there is no reason to construe the phrase "arising out of’ any differently for a homeowners’ policy exclusion than for an auto carrier’s coverage clause. To construe these identical phrases differently would leave open the possibility that some occurrences could escape coverage on both policies. In granting summary judgment in favor of United and declaring the rights of the parties, we hold that United has no duty to defend and/or indemnify in this action and that Aetna has the obligation to defend and, if required, to indemnify, its insured. (Appeals [1023]*1023from order of Erie Supreme Court—declaratory judgment.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Hancock, Jr., Callahan and Moule, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Progressive Dr. Ins. v. Malone
2024 NY Slip Op 03178 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
National Casualty Co. v. American Safety Casualty Insurance
812 F. Supp. 2d 505 (S.D. New York, 2011)
In re the Arbitration Between Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance & Malatino
75 A.D.3d 967 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Canal Insurance v. Axley
680 F. Supp. 2d 923 (W.D. Tennessee, 2009)
Sexton v. Omaha Property & Casualty Insurance Co.
231 S.W.3d 844 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2007)
Mount Vernon Fire Insurance v. Heaven's Little Hands Day Care
795 N.E.2d 1034 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 2003)
Empire Insurance v. Schliessman
306 A.D.2d 512 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Progressive Casualty Insurance v. Yodice
276 A.D.2d 540 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Progressive Casualty Insurance v. Yodice
180 Misc. 2d 863 (New York Supreme Court, 1999)
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Pfiel
710 N.E.2d 100 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1999)
Walton v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.
666 N.E.2d 1046 (New York Court of Appeals, 1996)
Weaver v. Royal Insurance Co. of America
674 A.2d 975 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1996)
Levitt v. Peluso
168 Misc. 2d 239 (New York Supreme Court, 1995)
Sochinski v. Bankers and Shippers Insurance Company
221 A.D.2d 889 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Allstate Insurance v. Keillor
537 N.W.2d 589 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
75 A.D.2d 1022, 429 N.Y.S.2d 508, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-services-automobile-assn-v-aetna-casualty-surety-co-nyappdiv-1980.