## Facts

- Karen M. Evans was injured at an outdoor party when a lighted M-80 explosive landed in her beer glass and exploded, causing serious hand injury and other wounds.
- It was raining and cold; a station wagon was parked with its rear facing a bonfire, tailgate open, and occupants sat in the rear area facing the fire for warmth/shelter.
- Mike Ehinger, seated in the rear area with Kathy Rose and Danny Ireland, allegedly lit the M-80 and threw it out of the open rear of the parked vehicle.
- Evans and her husband sued Rose, Ehinger, and Ireland for tort damages.
- Two insurers (one for the Rose vehicle and one for a vehicle owned by Ehinger) filed a declaratory-judgment action seeking a coverage determination under auto liability policies covering bodily injury “arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use” of an insured automobile.
- The trial court granted summary judgment against the insurers, concluding coverage existed because the station wagon was being used as a shelter, a contemplated automobile use.

## Issues

1. Whether bodily injuries caused by throwing a lighted M-80 from a parked station wagon “arose out of the … use” of an automobile under standard auto liability policy language.
2. Whether the vehicle’s role as a shelter/sitting area supplied a sufficient causal connection between vehicle use and the injury to establish coverage as a matter of law on summary judgment.

## Decision

- The Kansas Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment entered against the insurers.
- The court held the injuries did not arise out of the use of the vehicle within the meaning of the policies.
- The court concluded that the vehicle was, at most, the location from which the firecracker was thrown, and the intentional throwing of the explosive was an intervening cause not related to normal vehicle use.

## Legal Principles

- “Arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use” requires more than mere presence in, on, or near a vehicle.
- Coverage depends on whether the injury was a natural and reasonable incident or consequence of the vehicle’s use for purposes contemplated by the policy.
- A causal connection must exist between the vehicle’s use and the injury; a remote or incidental connection is insufficient.
- An injury does not arise out of vehicle use when it results from an intervening act not identifiable with normal ownership, maintenance, or use of the vehicle, even if the act occurs in or from the vehicle.

## Conclusion

Because the injury resulted from an intentional act of lighting and throwing an explosive, and the station wagon’s role as shelter did not create the required causal connection to normal vehicle use, the court held the auto liability policies did not provide coverage and reversed the trial court’s summary judgment.


Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Evans, 7 Kan. App. 2d 60, 637 P.2d 491 (Kan. Ct. App. 1981)