Section 5.8 caused by accident resulting from the ownership, maintenance, or use of . . .

• Library: Insurance Practice 2015

What is, and is not, an “accident” is also frequently litigated. But in policies that do not define the word “accident,” like this one, this litigation is usually about the application of the so called “intentional acts exclusion” (misnamed because it typically excludes damages intentionally caused, not intended acts resulting in unintended damages). See Steelman v. Holford, 765 S.W.2d 372 (Mo. App. S.D. 1989).

While the words “ownership” and “maintenance” are not the subject of a great deal of litigation, the meaning of the word “use” is. Unfortunately, that word is taken directly from the MVFRL, which does not define it. Thus, most insurers feel that it is necessary to use it in their policies. The results of the reported cases cannot be wholly reconciled, so each case should be examined carefully in light of the applicable policy’s wording.

For purposes of liability coverage, courts do not seem to require that the “use” of an auto be the direct and proximate cause of the injury, but some causal connection between the injury and use of the auto does seem to be necessary for there to be coverage. In Brown v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co., 838 S.W.2d 148 (Mo. App. W.D. 1992), an accidental shooting that occurred in an auto was not a “use” of the auto, while in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Whitehead, 711 S.W.2d 198 (Mo. App. S.D. 1986), it was. The test, in shooting...