Court Opinion

ID: 9738644
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:59:34.234138+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:07.581924
License: Public Domain

Reagan, District Judge,
concurring.
I concur with the result reached in the majority opinion, but I disagree with certain conclusions stated and some of the reasoning for the decision reached. I also feel the majority opinion lacks sufficient directions for further proceedings by the trial court.
The majority opinion rightfully states the issue presented by this action: whether plaintiff is required to provide coverage to Eileen Esterling under the policy provision providing coverage for damages “arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the owned automobile.” The opinion correctly states the salient facts giving rise to this declaratory judgment action, although it should be pointed out the only allegation of negligence in the underlying tort action which could even arguably be covered under this policy was the one claiming the insured “failed to provide a safe premises” for the injured minor.
I agree with the majority opinion that insurance policies are considered as any other contract, and given effect according to the ordinary sense of the terms used. Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co. v. Continental Ins. Co., 172 Neb. 179, 109 N. W. 2d 126 (1961). I agree with, and place emphasis on, the majority statement that ambiguities in policies should be liberally construed in favor of reasonable expectations of the insured. Neal v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 197 Neb. 718, 250 N. W. 2d 648 (1977).
The majority then cites 89 A. L. R. 2d 150 and 6B Appleman Insurance Law and Practice §§ 4311 to 4330 (Buckley Ed., 1979) for the proposition there *758must be a causal connection between the accident or injury and the ownership, maintenance, or use of the insured vehicle for coverage to be afforded. Although such may be a correct statement of the law, it may lead to an erroneous inference that the ownership, maintenance, or use of an insured vehicle must be the proximate or a proximate cause of the accident or injury. Cases collected, as well as text comments, in Appleman, supra at § 4317, establish that ownership, maintenance, or use of a vehicle need not be the direct and efficient cause of the injury, merely that some substantial nexus between the injury and the insured vehicle exist.
The case of National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Bruecks, 179 Neb. 642, 139 N. W. 2d 821 (1966), also relied upon by the majority, is distinguishable from the instant case in at least two important aspects. In Bruecks, there were no allegations of negligence in the underlying petition which could even arguably relate to the ownership, maintenance, or use of the insured vehicle. Secondly, the underlying tort action was against a passenger who was totally unconnected with the ownership or maintenance of the vehicle where the injury occurred.
The majority opinion then moves toward the conclusion that Mrs. Esterling’s use of the insured vehicle as a playhouse was not within the intended policy coverage. There are two problems with this reasoning. First, it assumes that it was the insured’s intent to use the vehicle as a playhouse. This is an assumption based on absolutely no evidence and one which is contrary to the normal experience of mankind. Without endorsing the safety of such practice, one must recognize how frequently adults leave small children in automobiles for a few minutes (and sometimes longer) while they run into a store for a loaf of bread or a quart of milk. Secondly, it refers only to the use of the vehicle and disregards the term “maintenance.”
*759As far as this court knows, “maintenance” is not defined within Dairyland’s policy. The normal definition of this term would be an act or acts of keeping or supporting a particular object (such as the insured vehicle) in a state of good repair or condition. It has been indicated in the text cited by the majority that maintenance includes acts of either commission or omission relative to the external or mechanical condition of the vehicle. Appleman, supra at § 4315, p. 339. Although Hartford Fire Ins. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 264 Ark. 743, 574 S. W. 2d 265 (1978), is similar to the instant case in some aspects, it is substantially different in others. That case was an action for contribution between insurance companies and was decided after a full evidentiary hearing. The opinion is premised on “use” of the insured vehicle, rather than “maintenance,” and it is clear the trier of fact came to the conclusion the insured vehicle was in fact being used as a “playhouse. ”
With the ambiguity in the term “maintenance,” the one underlying allegation of negligence that the insured “failed to provide a safe premises,” a question of fact is presented on whether coverage exists. That could only be determined on a full and complete evidentiary hearing. If this analysis is correct, the decision reached by the court this term in MFA Ins. Companies v. Mendenhall, ante p. 430, 288 N. W. 2d 270 (1980), entitles either party to a jury trial as a matter of right. Such a trial would not of necessity terminate the controversy, for even if coverage should exist, Dairyland could still defend the tort action on the issue of damages or on the issue of whether Mrs. Esterling’s failure to supervise was the sole proximate cause of the injuries sustained.
Because of this, the trial court should consider the broad discretion vested in it by section 25-21,154, R. R. S. 1943, to refuse to entertain a declaratory judg*760ment proceeding that would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy. The trial court could adequately protect Dairyland’s rights in the tort action by requesting the jury to make specific findings of fact regarding the cause of the injury.