Insurance_auto accident_determination of applicable policy_passenger grabbing steering
wheel_not in possession of vehicle
Summary judgment for defendant was affirmed in a declaratory judgment action between
two insurance companies to determine their obligations in an automobile accident case in which
the passenger grabbed the steering wheel and caused the accident. Although plaintiff argued that
the passenger was in lawful possession of the car when she grabbed the wheel, so that the
driver's policy (issued by defendant) would provide coverage, grabbing the wheel of the car
while joking around does not constitute lawful possession of the car.
Pinto, Coates, Kyre & Brown, P.L.L.C., by Paul D. Coates and
Brady A. Yntema, for plaintiff-appellant.
Teague, Rotenstreich & Stanaland, L.L.P., by Paul A. Daniels,
for defendant-appellee.
HUDSON, Judge.
On 12 September 2002, North Carolina Farm Bureau (“Farm
Bureau”) brought a declaratory judgment complaint against
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (“Nationwide”) to determine the
obligations of each company under terms of a settlement in a
wrongful death case. Both parties moved for summary judgment, and
following a hearing, on 10 December 2003, the court granted
Nationwide's motion and denied Farm Bureau's. Farm Bureau appeals.
For the reasons discussed below, we affirm. This case arises from a fatal car crash. On 27 October 1994,
Charly Simms (“Charly”) was driving a car owned by her mother, Betty
Simms (“Betty”), on I-40 near Asheville, with Betty's permission.
Charly's friend Reagan Mason (“Reagan”) was a passenger in the car.
After Charly shared a story about once having driven through a weigh
station, Reagan suddenly grabbed the wheel and attempted to steer
the car into a weigh station the car was passing. Charly's hands
remained on the wheel and she attempted to regain control of the car
by steering back to the left. When Charly swerved the car back to
the left, it struck a car driven by Thomas Graves, who died as a
result of the collision. Graves' estate brought a wrongful death
action against Reagan, Charly and Betty. Farm Bureau insured
Reagan, and Nationwide insured Charly and Betty. The insurance
companies settled the claims against their insureds for $37,500,
then brought this declaratory action to determine their respective
obligations. In its complaint, Farm Bureau argued that Nationwide
was primarily liable for damages arising from the wreck. At the
hearing on their summary judgment motions, the parties stipulated
that Reagan was not a permissive user of Betty's car and that the
sole issue before the court was whether Reagan was in lawful
possession of the car. The court found that Reagan was not in
lawful possession of the car and granted Nationwide's cross-motion
for summary judgment.
Farm Bureau argues that the court erred in granting summary
judgment in favor of Nationwide and in denying summary judgment for
Farm Bureau. We disagree. The standard of review on appeal from a denial of summary
judgment
is whether there is any genuine issue of
material fact and whether the moving party is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
Further, the evidence presented by the parties
must be viewed in the light most favorable to
the non-movant. The court should grant summary
judgment when 'the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on
file, together with the affidavits, if any,
show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that any party is entitled to
a judgment as a matter of law.'
Bruce-Terminix Co. v. Zurich Ins. Co., 130 N.C. App. 729, 733, 504
S.E.2d 574, 577 (1998) (internal citations omitted) (citing N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (1990)).
Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-279.21(b)(2), a vehicle owner's
liability policy
[s]hall insure the person named therein and any
other person, as insured, using any such motor
vehicle or motor vehicles with the express or
implied permission of such named insured, or
any other persons in lawful possession, against
loss from the liability imposed by law for
damages arising out of the ownership,
maintenance or use of such motor vehicle. . .
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-279.21(b)(2) (2004) (emphasis supplied). Here,
the parties stipulated that Reagan was not a permissive user of
Betty's car, limiting the issue before the court to whether Reagan
was in lawful possession of the car when she grabbed the steering
wheel as the car traveled down Interstate 40. “[A] person is in
lawful possession of a vehicle . . . if he is given possession of
the automobile by the automobile's owner or owner's permittee under
a good faith belief that giving possession of the vehicle to the
third party would not be in violation of any law or contractualobligation.” Belasco v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 73 N.C. App. 413,
419, 326 S.E.2d 109, 113, disc. review denied, 313 N.C. 596, 332
S.E.2d 177 (1985). “This implies not only that the owner or the
owner's permittee must give possession to a third party in good
faith, but also that the third party must take in good faith and
without any notice of restrictions on his use.” Nationwide Mut.
Ins. Co. v. Baer, 113 N.C. App. 517, 521, 439 S.E.2d 202, 205
(1994).
Farm Bureau argues that Reagan was in lawful possession of
Betty's car when she grabbed the steering wheel. At the time she
grabbed the wheel, Reagan was sitting in the front passenger seat,
as Charly drove the car down Interstate 40. We find no case in this
State in which anyone other than the operator, sitting in the
driver's seat, has been found to be in possession of a car. Rather,
whether a passenger who grabs a steering wheel can be considered in
possession of the vehicle appears to be a matter of first impression
in North Carolina. However, a number of other states have addressed
a related issue, concerning whether a passenger who grabs the
steering wheel is operating a vehicle as referred to in an insurance
policy exclusion. We are persuaded by the reasoning of those states
which hold that a passenger who grabs the steering wheel is actually
interfering with the vehicle's operation. See Harrison v. Tomes,
956 S.W.2d 268 (Mo. 1997); Farm Bureau Gen. Ins. Co. v. Riddering,
432 N.W.2d 404 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988); West Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v.
Milwaukee Mut. Ins. Co., 384 N.W.2d 877, affirmed en banc, 384
N.W.2d 877, (Minn. 1986); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. White,
655 P.2d 599 (Ore. Ct. App. 1982); but see Gibbs v. Nat'l Gen. Ins.Co., 938 S.W.2d 600 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997); U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v.
United Serv. Auto. Ass'n, 772 S.W.2d 218 (Tex. Ct. App. 1989); U.S.
Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Hokanson, 584 P.2d 1264, 1267 (Kan. Ct. App.
1978); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Larsen, 377 N.E.2d 1218,
(Ill. Ct. App. 1978). As such, we cannot agree that grabbing the
steering wheel of a moving car from the passenger seat in the
circumstances presented here constitutes “possession” of the car.
Thus, we conclude that Reagan was not in possession of the car when
she grabbed the steering wheel.
Further, even if Reagan were in possession of the car, the
possession would not have been lawful. This Court has held that
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-279.21 requires “not only that the owner or the
owner's permittee must give possession to a third party in good
faith, but also that the third party must take in good faith and
without any notice of restrictions on his use.” Baer, 113 N.C. App.
at 521, 439 S.E.2d at 205. If a driver suffered a medical emergency
and lost control of a car, perhaps a passenger could have a good
faith belief that she could take possession of the car by grabbing
the steering wheel; however, that circumstance is not before us.
Here, the evidence indicates that Reagan grabbed the wheel while
joking around. Common sense dictates that a reasonable passenger
cannot in good faith believe that she may lawfully possess a car by
suddenly grabbing the steering wheel of a moving car in this manner.
Affirmed.
Judges WYNN and ELMORE concur.
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***