Legal Opinion
Garrison v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Court of Appeals of Kansas
Decided April 21, 1995No. 71,055PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Larson, J.:
Tad Garrison appeals the trial court’s ruling in favor of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) and Dairyland Insurance Company (Dairyland), holding insurance coverage did not exist for his gunshot wound.
Garrison was seriously injured when a shotgun discharged as Kurt Pfannenstiel removed the gun from Garrison’s car during a hunting trip. Garrison sued Pfannenstiel for negligence and Garrison’s automobile insurer, State Farm, for personal injury protection (PIP) benefits.
State Farm defended on the basis that the accident did not arise out of the ownership,…
2Cases cited38 opinions
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. PartridgeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
- State Capital Insurance v. Nationwide Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
- National Union F. Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. BruecksNebraska Supreme Court · 1966
- Travelers Insurance Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1973
- Brenner v. Aetna Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1968
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Mid-Century Insurance Co. of Texas v. LindseyTexas Supreme Court · 1999
- Cady v. SchrollSupreme Court of Kansas · 2014
- Archunde v. International Surplus Lines InsuranceNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1995
- Garrison v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceSupreme Court of Kansas · 1995
- Hartford Fire Insurance v. Vita Craft Corp.District Court, D. Kansas · 2012
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.