Court Opinion

ID: 9704797
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:46:59.967437+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:05.592736
License: Public Domain

OPINION
PARKER, Judge.
On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court found that Anthony Wieneke was not entitled to coverage under the no-fault and uninsured motorist provisions of his automobile insurance policy for injuries he sustained in a fight. We affirm.
FACTS
In the late afternoon of June 11, 1982, Anthony Wieneke and Douglas Beedle were each driving east on Shepard Road in St. Paul. Each accuses the other of driving improperly. Eventually, the two men stopped their cars next to one another at a stoplight. Beedle got out of his car and walked to Wieneke’s car, where the two exchanged heated words. While Wieneke *599was still seated in his car, Beedle punched him in the face, breaking his nose. Beedle later was charged and convicted by jury trial of fourth-degree assault for his actions.
Wieneke' held an automobile insurance policy with respondent Home Mutual Insurance Co. The policy included first-party, no-fault coverage and uninsured motorist coverage as follows:
PERSONAL INJURY PROTECTION COVERAGE
We will pay, in accordance with the Minnesota No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act, personal injury protection benefits for:
1. medical expenses,
2. work loss,
3. essential services expenses,
4. funeral expenses, and
5. survivors’ loss
incurred for bodily injury to: an eligible injured person, caused by an accident due to the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle as a vehicle * * *.
******
UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE We will pay damages for bodily injury which an insured person is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle. The bodily injury must be caused by accident and arise out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the uninsured motor vehicle.
Wieneke filed a declaratory judgment action against Home Mutual, seeking a determination that the insurer was obligated to extend coverage to him for the injuries he suffered at the hands of Beedle. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Home Mutual, finding that the assault was not an “accident” within the meaning of the insurance policy. The court did not address the issue of whether the assault arose out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle.
ISSUE
Did the injuries suffered by Wieneke as a result of his fight with Beedle entitle him to benefits under his insurance policy’s no-fault and uninsured motorist provisions?
DISCUSSION
Wieneke’s injuries did not arise out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle. “The mere fact that an accident occurred while the injured party was on, in or near a statutorily defined motor vehicle, of itself is not dispositive” in such cases. Waldbillig v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 321 N.W.2d 49, 51 (Minn.1982) (no-fault coverage denied where claimant was injured by defective engine mounted in a parked truck). The vehicle must be “something more than the mere situs of the injury.” Id. at 52; see also Tlougan v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co., 310 N.W.2d 116, 117 (Minn.1981) (no-fault coverage denied where child was injured while playing with matches in parked car).
An accident will be deemed to have arisen out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle only if the vehicle was an “active accessory” in bringing about the injury. Holm v. Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Co., 261 N.W.2d 598, 603 (Minn.1977). The vehicle’s use must be actively connected with the injury. Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. of Connecticut v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co., 352 N.W.2d 798, 799 (Minn.Ct.App.1984).
Although the fistfight in this case may have been precipitated by the driving conduct of the two men, Wieneke’s injuries were not actively connected to the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle. The injuries resulted from Beedle’s punching him in the nose.
This case is controlled by Holm. In Holm a police officer left his squad car in order to apprehend the insured, who was injured in the process of the arrest. In that case the Minnesota Supreme Court denied coverage, stating:
*600[I]t would seem that the physical injuries [the officer] inflicted upon Holm were * * * unrelated to the “úse” of the police vehicle. [The officer] had completely left the vehicle before he administered the tortious battery. The police car had served only to transport him to the scene of the incident. The battery could as easily have occurred had [the officer] come upon [Holm] while on foot.
Holm, 261 N.W.2d at 603 (emphasis in original).
The same could be said in the present case. In both cases “the acts of leaving the vehicle and inflicting a battery were * * * events of independent significance which broke the causal link between the ‘use’ of the vehicle and the injuries inflicted.” Id.; see also Fire & Casualty Insurance, 352 N.W.2d at 800 (in case involving accidental shooting inside a parked car, perpetrator’s negligence was an act of independent significance breaking the causal link between the vehicle and the injury). Although Holm involved automobile liability insurance rather than no-fault or uninsured motorist coverage, we nevertheless find its rationale controlling here.
Wieneke correctly cites Meric v. Mid-Century Insurance Co., 343 N.W.2d 688 (Minn.Ct.App.1984), for the proposition that an intentional tort may constitute an “accident arising out of the use or maintenance of a motor vehicle,” as suffered by the insured victim, for the purpose of finding first-party coverage. However, the distinguishing facts of the present case, so similar to those of Holm, unequivocally establish a break in the necessary causal connection between the tortfeasor’s acts causing the injury and the use of an automobile. There was no such causal break in Meric.
Because we find that Wieneke’s injuries did not arise out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle, we need not determine whether the assault was an “accident” within Wieneke’s policy.
DECISION
Wieneke’s injuries did not arise out of the use or maintenance of a motor vehicle, and therefore the trial court did not err in denying coverage.
Affirmed.
POPOVICH, C.J., and LANSING, PORSBERG and NIERENGARTEN, JJ., concur.
CRIPPEN, J., dissents.