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

Heading: State Farm Automobile Policy

Text: We will first address the circuit court's order granting summary judgment in favor of State Farm. In its motion for summary judgment, State Farm argued that Deschner's claims were not covered by the State Farm automobile policy because the claims did not arise out of an accident resulting from the ownership, maintenance, or use of the car. The State Farm policy states, in pertinent part: We will: 1. Pay damages which an insured becomes legally liable to pay because of: a. bodily injury to others, and b. damage to or destruction of property including loss of its use, caused by accident resulting from the ownership, maintenance or use of your car. Deschner concedes in her response to Allstate's motion for summary judgment that the State Farm policy does not provide coverage by stating that the shooting of Christopher Deschner was not a proper `use' or `occupancy' of the automobile at issue. Deschner even admits in her third-party complaint against Allstate that the State Farm policy does not provide coverage by stating, [a]s a matter of law, the injuries suffered by Christopher Deschner did not arise out of the operation, maintenance, or use of an automobile as correctly decided by a previous order of this Court granting the motion for summary judgment filed by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. Although Deschner now attempts to revive her argument against State Farm, the argument is inconsistent and not fully developed. Thus, because Deschner concedes that the State Farm policy does not provide coverage, she has abandoned this argument on appeal, and we need not address this issue.