It is important to note that Florida courts have given "arising out of" a very broad meaning turning on whether the injury was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the use, ownership, or maintenance of the vehicle. Blish v. Atlanta Casualty Co., 736 So.2d 1151. In another leading case, Carpenter, a Florida court has held that it was not necessary for the vehicle to proximately cause the injury. To be within the terms of the liability, the loss must just arise out of the use of the vehicle. Carpenter v. Sapp, 569 So.2d 1291 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

All that is required is that there is some nexus between the West Palm beach, Florida motor vehicle and the injury. In the leading case that ruled on this, a woman was in her car and about to drive away when a stranger approached her asking for a ride. Upon refusing, the stranger shot her in the face and drove away with the car. Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Novak, 453 So.2d 1116, 1119 (Fla. 1984). Are you wondering how the court found that the injury "arose out of the use" of the automobile? The court reasoned that the automobile need not be the instrumentality that caused the injury and that the type of conduct causing the injury need not be foreseeable as identifying with the normal use of the vehicle. Id. It seems that the court will allow insurance liability coverage if there is a highly substantial connection between the use of the vehicle and the event causing the injury. The decision in Novak involved a PIP case; thus the courts holding does not extend to liability or uninsured motorist coverage. However, the case of Carpenter v. Sapp involved uninsured motorist coverage. The driver of a trailer was transporting cattle in his vehicle when trailer overturned and two of his bull crashed into the insured's home causing property damage. Again the court held that the loss need only arise from the use of the vehicle and it was not necessary for the vehicle to proximately cause the injury. Carpenter v. Sapp, 569 So.2d 1291 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). UM coverage was held to be applicable in the Carpenter case.

You may be thinking that it seems like any injury that seems to have a connection with an automobile will always be covered under liability. However, this is not the case and Florida courts have given some examples of cases where no causal connection was found. One such case was Watson v. Watson, which involved a person shot by a gun when the gun went off as he was removing it from the vehicle. It must be noted that other cases in which no causal connection were found include a man shot from the bed of a parked truck by a hunter who mistakenly shot the guy when he was using the bed as a deer stand; a pedestrian hit by a third party vehicle when a police officer pulled him over and he claims the officer negligently parked his vehicle. There seems to be no bright line distinction between what kinds of injuries are covered and those that are not. By calling your local West Palm Beach accident attorney, you will know exactly if your injury is actionable. To keep it simple, remember that the automobile must play some active role in the defendant's action, instead of being located at the site of the injury.