Opinion ID: 1131456
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The case before the trial court

Text: Willard and his wife, Carol, [collectively called insured] sued both Kelley and their personal automobile insurance carrier, Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance Co. (insurer or Prudential). From the latter they sought to recover the limits of the policy's uninsured motorist (UM) coverage for bodily injuries sustained in the shooting incident. Willard alone pressed for recovery under the medical payments coverage. [1] Without affecting any issue in controversy between Prudential and its insured, default judgment was taken against Kelley, and, since the latter did not appeal, that judgment now stands as final. The remaining parties in the lawsuit (the insured and insurer) stipulated to these facts: 1) at the time of the shooting Kelley was an uninsured/underinsured motorist within the meaning of the UM statute, 36 O.S. 1981 § 3636, [2] 2) from within an auto mobile, Kelley shot ... Willard several times thus inflicting wounds [upon several parts of his body] while the latter was beside his patrol car and 3) the damages sustained by the insured equal or exceed the limits of the insurance policy's UM and medical payments coverages. Each party sought summary judgment. The insurer argued that coverage is afforded neither by the UM statute nor by the insurance policy, which contains the following provision: [Insurer is obligated] [t]o pay all sums which the insured ... shall be legally entitled to recover as damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured automobile because of bodily injury ... sustained by the insured, caused by accident and arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of such uninsured automobile... .  (Emphasis added.) Prudential maintained that, as a matter of law, Kelley's act of shooting from an automobile does not constitute a use which gives rise to UM liability within the meaning of the quoted policy language. The insured, on the other hand, urged that the injurious event should be viewed as an accident stemming from Kelley's continuous and uninterrupted operation and use of an uninsured vehicle. The policy does not define the term accident. Prudential's refusal to pay Willard under the medical payments coverage appears to have been rested on the following policy provision which obligates the company [t]o pay all reasonable expenses incurred within one year from the date of accident for necessary medical, surgical, X-ray and dental services ...    To or for the named insured ... who sustains bodily injury ... caused by accident,    (b) while occupying a non-owned automobile, but only if such person has ... the permission of the owner to use the automobile and the use is within the scope of such permission... . (Emphasis added.) The trial court gave summary judgment to the insured and found 1) the injurious episode was an accident which arose out of the use of an uninsured automobile and 2) the insured is entitled to recover under the UM and medical payments provisions of the policy. [3]