Opinion ID: 1131456
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The issues on certiorari

Text: Prudential urges on certiorari that both the Court of Appeals and the trial court erroneously concluded as a matter of law that Willard's injuries arose from Kelley's use of the car. The essence of Prudential's position is that Willard's injuries arose from the use of a firearm which is not a natural and reasonable consequence of a vehicle's use; the gunman's criminal act (of shooting Willard) intervened between the vehicle's use as a means of escape and Willard's gunshot wounds. Based on the same arguments against Willard's quest for UM protection, the insurer views medical payments coverage as equally unavailable. The insured's response to the certiorari petition seeks to provide a cogent foundation for the Court of Appeals' opinion and reasserts what the trial court, the Court of Appeals and the insurer all have concurred in: that the evidentiary materials tendered in the summary judgment process show that no material fact issues remain to be tried and that resolution of this claim hinges solely on a question of law. We reject this notion because, based on our assessment of the record, conflicting inferences may be drawn from the material facts placed before the trial court. [4] Summary judgment for the insured was hence improvidently rendered. We grant, Prudential's petition for certiorari to provide guidance upon remand.