Opinion ID: 2167426
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Allstate Homeowner's Policy

Text: For her second point on appeal, Deschner asserts that if Christopher Deschner's injuries would not be covered by the language of the automobile policy insuring Keith Blane Neal then they should be covered under the Neals' homeowner's policy with Allstate for the unintentional negligent conduct of its insured Keith Neal. Specifically, Deschner contends that Allstate contractually agreed that it would be obligated to pay damages up to the applicable policy limits for acts of negligence of Keith Neal that caused injury to Christopher Deschner. In response, Allstate admits that Keith Neal was insured under the homeowner's policy issued to his parents, but asserts that there are no issues of material fact in this case. Allstate additionally argues that the homeowner's policy provides no coverage because (1) the paint-ball shooting was not a covered occurrence; (2) the homeowner's policy excludes coverage for injuries resulting from intentional acts of the insured person; and (3) Deschner's sole claim against Keith Neal is based on his use and occupancy of a motor vehicle. Allstate's homeowner's policy states that it will provide coverage for the following: Subject to the terms, conditions and limitations of this policy, Allstate will pay damages which an insured person becomes legally obligated to pay because of bodily injury or property damage arising from an occurrence to which this policy applies, and is covered by this part of the policy. Allstate excludes the following from coverage: 1. We do not cover any bodily injury or property damage intended by, or which may reasonably be expected to result from the intentional or criminal acts or omissions of, any insured person. This exclusion applies even if: a) such insured person lacks the mental capacity to govern his or her conduct; b) such bodily injury or property damage is of a different kind or degree than intended or reasonably expected; c) such bodily injury or property damage is sustained by a different person than intended or reasonably expected. .... 5. We do not cover any bodily injury or property damage arising out of the ownership, maintenance, use, occupancy, renting, loaning, entrusting, loading or unloading of any motor vehicle or trailer.... Deschner asserts that the exclusionary language in the Allstate policy is almost identical to the language included in the State Farm policy. The State Farm policy includes coverage for injuries arising out of the ownership, maintenance, and use of a vehicle, and the Allstate policy excludes coverage for injuries arising out of the ownership, maintenance, use, or occupancy of a vehicle. Regarding the provisions in the two policies, the circuit court stated: The State Farm policy says that we cover ownership, maintenance or use. Allstate says that we don't cover ownership, maintenance, use, occupancy or anything that involves that automobile we do not cover it and in this instance I think that the policy language is pretty definite. They say that if you want to be covered by automobile insurance you have got to buy an automobile policy.... So I think, unfortunately we have a situation here that neither the automobile policy nor the homeowners insurance would cover this. .... I know the terms of this policy because I think the terms of [Allstate's] policy are much broader than the [State Farm policy]. The [Allstate] policy pretty much says that if you have anything to do with an automobile it is not covered. The provision in the Allstate policy excluding coverage for the ownership, maintenance, use, or occupancy of a vehicle is clear and unambiguous. There is no question of fact regarding Neal's occupancy of the vehicle. Christopher Deschner's injuries were the result of a paint ball fired from the Neals' car that was occupied by Keith Neal, Derek Balance and Gene Jackson. Giving effect to the plain language of the policy, see McGrew, supra , we hold that Christopher Deschner's injuries are clearly excluded from coverage because they arise out of the occupancy of a vehicle. Accordingly, we affirm the orders of the circuit court granting summary judgment in favor of both State Farm and Allstate. Affirmed. IMBER, J., not participating.