Opinion ID: 2518484
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The CGL Automobile Exclusion Applies In The Instant Case.

Text: The circuit court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of Northfield because all of Muramoto's injuries arose from the use or operation of an automobile. Subsection 1, infra, discusses the phrase arising from the use or operation of an automobile and concludes that this unambiguous phrase should be accorded the same interpretation in the context of a CGL policy exclusion and in the context of an automobile insurance coverage clause. Subsection 2, infra, applies this principle to the facts of the instant case and concludes that OTS and the City are not entitled to coverage because Muramoto's injuries arose from the use or operation of an automobile. Subsection 3, infra, rejects OTS's and the City's arguments that coverage exists based on Muramoto's allegations of negligent hiring, supervision, and training; where liability stems solely from an auto-related cause, the CGL automobile exclusion will not be negated simply because the injured party's complaint alleges various theories of liability.