Case Title: Mayer v. State Farm

Citation: 

Docket Number: 88541

State: oklahoma

Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Date: 1997-05-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
Mayer v. State Farm  Mayer v. State Farm 1997 OK 67 944 P.2d 288 68 OBJ 1864 Case Number: 88541 Decided: 05/20/1997 Supreme Court of Oklahoma v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee ON APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT, CLEVELAND COUNTY, WILLIAM C. HETHERINGTON, Jr., JUDGE ¶ 0 Stanley F. Mayer ( Mayer or insured ) sued to recover under the uninsured motorist provision of his automobile insurance policy for bodily injuries sustained when an explosive device placed in an uninsured truck was detonated while that vehicle was parked near a federal office building. The trial court gave summary judgment to State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ( State Farm or insurer ). Insured appealed. The appeal stands retained for this court's consideration and disposition. THE TRIAL COURT'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. Kenneth P. Craig, Moore, Oklahoma, and Rex K. Travis and Patricia Travis, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Appellant. Joseph T. Acquaviva, Jr., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Appellee. Opala, J. [944 P.2d 289] ¶ 1 The issue we are asked to decide today is whether an explosion occasioned by a bomb put in a parked vehicle affords a predicate for recovery under uninsured motorist coverage. We answer in the negative. ¶ 2 Stanley F. Mayer ( insured ) sought recovery for loss under the uninsured motorist ( UM ) provision of his automobile insurance policy with State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ( State Farm or insurer ). By its summary judgment for the insurer the trial court ruled that while Mayer's injuries, which resulted from a truck bomb explosion, arose out of the use of a motor vehicle and were causally connected to that use, the link for causal transportation mode came to be severed by the intentional act of the bombing perpetrator. ¶ 3 We hold that because, when harm was inflicted, the uninsured vehicle was used as a launching pad for a bomb, there was no requisite connection between Mayer's injuries and the truck's vehicular use. The summary judgment for insurer must hence be affirmed. I. THE ANATOMY OF LITIGATION ¶ 4 On April 19, 1995 Mayer was at work in downtown Oklahoma City when his employer's office building was damaged by a bombing incident which targeted the nearby Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. Mayer sustained severe bodily injuries. At the time of the explosion Mayer's automobile insurance policy with State Farm included coverage for accidental injury caused by uninsured motorists. 1 ¶ 5 Mayer sued State Farm for $25,000.00, the maximum amount of his coverage under the UM provision. Insurer denied liability and sought summary judgment. By stipulation insured concedes that the explosion was caused by an assailant who drove to the Murrah building a rented truck filled with explosives, then parked the vehicle on the street in front of that building and detonated the cargo. The trial judge, who ruled the truck was used as a "weapon of lethal destruction" and not as a motor vehicle, gave summary judgment to State Farm. Mayer seeks review, urging that the assailant's use of the uninsured truck as a vehicle was integral to the harm-dealing event and the bomb's presence in the truck served to connect the criminal act to the insured's injuries. State Farm argues the use of the rental truck as a "container" for explosives is dehors the ambit and intent of the provisions of 36 O.S. 1991 § 3636, [944 P.2d 290] 6 II. THE EMPLOYMENT OF AN UNINSURED MOTOR VEHICLE AS AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF INJURY WITHOUT A CAUSAL CONNECTION TO ITS USE IN TRANSPORTATION MODE INSULATES THE INSURER FROM UM LIABILITY. ¶ 7 An insured's injuries, to be redressible under UM coverage, must have ( 1 ) been caused by an accident and ( 2 ) arisen out of the use of an automobile. ¶ 8 Whenever injury is claimed to be the fault of the uninsured motorist, a distinction is drawn between the vehicle's function as the mere situs of an accident, and thus incidental to the injury ( which could have occurred with or without the presence of the vehicle ), ¶ 9 Insured urges that in this case the criminal act is inextricably connected to the "use" of the uninsured truck. But for the vehicle ( which the assailant drove to the site ) Mayer's injuries would not have occurred. employment, at the critical time, as a weapon, firebomb or implement of destruction in a manner completely incongruous with its transportation function and without a causal link to locomotion is not within UM coverage. 13 The only claimed transportation connection in this case is the uninsured vehicle's antecedent use to transport the explosive materials close to the chosen target. The site's destruction by the truck's contents occurred after the vehicle's transportation use had been abandoned. The subsequent employment of the truck as a bomb clearly severed from the ensuing explosion the requisite transportation nexus to the vehicle. 14 For the purpose of determining insurer's liability due under Mayer's UM coverage at the critical point of insured's injury, the assailant had ceased to be an "operator of a motor vehicle." 15 III. SUMMARY ¶ 10 The insured's claim, to be redressible under uninsured motorist coverage, must show an injury that (1) was caused by an accident, (2) arose out of the use of the uninsured vehicle and (3) had a causal connection to the uninsured vehicle's transportation mode. 16 ¶ 11 The undisputed facts here are that (a) a harm-dealing event had occurred and (b) it arose out of the use of the uninsured truck. The third element for recovery--that of a causal connection between the injuries and the truck's function as a method of transport--is absent. At the time of the explosion the assailant had clearly abandoned the truck's vehicular use ¶ 12 THE TRIAL COURT'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. ¶ 13 KAUGER, C.J., SUMMERS, V.C.J., WATT, J., FOOT