Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Allstate Insurance v. Ye Jin Jun
Citations: 712 So. 2d 415; 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 5710; 1998 WL 256703Docket: No. 97-1247
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; May 22, 1998; Florida; State Appellate Court
Allstate Insurance Company appeals a summary judgment in favor of Ye Jin Jun regarding her claim for personal injury protection (PIP) benefits. The trial court granted Jun PIP benefits, determining her injuries resulted from the use of her car. Allstate contests this ruling, arguing a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the causation of Jun's injuries. Jun's lawsuit arose from a robbery that occurred while she was in her car. After closing her convenience store, she placed a significant amount of cash and food stamps in her car’s trunk. During her drive home, another vehicle blocked her path, and an assailant shot at her car, injuring her before demanding money. Despite Jun's claims of fearing for her car's safety, an eyewitness testified that the assailants did not attempt to steal her vehicle, only the bag of money. According to Florida Statutes § 627.736(1), PIP is required for injuries resulting from the ownership, maintenance, or use of a vehicle. Allstate cited prior case law, arguing that while the shooting occurred in the car, Jun's injuries did not arise from its use, as established in Reynolds v. Allstate Insurance Co. The court found that a causal connection between the vehicle and the injury must exist for liability. Conversely, Jun referenced Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Novak, which suggested a broader interpretation of “arising out of,” indicating that a nexus between the vehicle and the injury suffices for PIP coverage. The court acknowledged a substantial connection between Jun’s vehicle use and the incident, necessitating further examination of the facts to resolve the matter. The motivation for the attack on the deceased was the assailant's desire to gain possession of the motor vehicle. According to the precedent set in Novak, it is sufficient for an insured to show a connection between the vehicle's use and the injury rather than proving the vehicle was the direct cause of the injury. This principle was further illustrated in Pena v. Allstate Insurance Co., where the court found that the vehicle played a critical role in the robbery, thus allowing for the recovery of Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits. Additional cases, such as State Farm Mutual Auto. Insurance Co. v. Barth, confirmed that injuries sustained during assaults in vehicles could be covered by PIP if the assault was motivated by a desire to use the vehicle. Conversely, in Allstate Insurance Co. v. Furo, the court ruled that PIP benefits were not available because the vehicle was merely the site of the injury without a connection to the assailant's desire for the vehicle. The current case presents a genuine issue regarding whether the assailants sought to use or possess Jun's car, leading to the reversal of the trial court's summary judgment and remanding for further proceedings.