Mere Situs Is Not “Use” Under Florida UM Coverage: Alaska Supreme Court (Mem. Op.) Affirms No Coverage for Fireworks Injury Launched From a Stationary, Uninsured Trailer

Mere Situs Is Not “Use” Under Florida UM Coverage: Alaska Supreme Court (Mem. Op.) Affirms No Coverage for Fireworks Injury Launched From a Stationary, Uninsured Trailer

Case: Walter M. Elrod and Donna F. Elrod v. Christmas in Ice, Inc. and USAA General Indemnity Company

Court: Supreme Court of the State of Alaska (Memorandum Opinion and Judgment, non-precedential under Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d))

Date: October 22, 2025

Citation: No. 2115 (Supreme Court No. S-19061; Superior Court No. 4FA-20-02597 CI)

Introduction

This memorandum decision addresses a recurring and often contentious question in automobile insurance law: when does an injury “arise out of the ownership, maintenance, or use” of a motor vehicle for purposes of uninsured motorist (UM) coverage? The case arises from a New Year’s Eve fireworks event in North Pole, Alaska, where plaintiff Walter Elrod, a Florida resident, suffered blindness allegedly caused by an errant firework launched from an uninsured flatbed trailer. Walter and his wife, Donna, sought UM benefits under their Florida-issued USAA policy. USAA denied coverage, arguing the injury did not arise from the “use” of a motor vehicle as required by Florida law. The Alaska superior court granted summary judgment to USAA, and the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed.

The dispute centers on Florida’s unsettled causation standard for UM coverage: is a “mere nexus” between a vehicle and an injury sufficient, or must there be a causal contribution flowing from the vehicle’s use? Applying Florida law by way of Alaska’s conflicts principles, the Court concluded that Florida requires more than a mere nexus; there must be a causal connection beyond the vehicle serving as the location of the accident. Because the stationary trailer functioned only as the platform from which fireworks were ignited — and did not transport the fireworks, contribute to their trajectory or malfunction, or otherwise causally contribute to the injury — UM coverage did not attach.

Summary of the Opinion

  • Choice of law: Florida law governs interpretation of the Florida-issued policy under Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 188; the parties did not contest that determination on appeal.
  • UM Policy language: The USAA policy provides UM benefits for damages a covered person is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle because of bodily injury caused by an “auto accident,” where the owner’s/operator’s liability “must arise out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of the uninsured motor vehicle.” The policy defines “uninsured motor vehicle” to include a trailer with no applicable liability coverage at the time of the accident.
  • Florida causation standard: The Court recognized that Florida law is not uniform on the precise test, but it is clear that something more than a “mere nexus” is required; there must be a causal connection between the vehicle’s use and the injury.
  • Application: On undisputed facts, the trailer did not transport the fireworks, its motion did not contribute to the injury, and it did not otherwise cause or contribute to the firework’s path or malfunction; it was simply the place from which fireworks were launched. The fireworks were an independent and intervening cause of injury.
  • Holding: Because the injury did not arise out of the “use” of the uninsured trailer under Florida UM law, USAA owed no UM benefits. Summary judgment for USAA was affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The Court canvassed Florida decisions to position this case along familiar fault lines between “mere situs” cases (no coverage) and cases where the vehicle’s use causally contributes to the injury (coverage). Key decisions include:

  • Race v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co. (Fla. 1989):
    • Race held that UM coverage for injuries “arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use” involves a causation inquiry that is at least as demanding as liability-coverage standards and more demanding than the “liberal” PIP nexus standard. Intentional acts can still produce an “accident” from the victim’s perspective for UM purposes.
    • Although Race quoted Appleman’s three “interesting rules” (inherent nature; within territorial limits/loading-unloading; vehicle itself produces the injury), the Alaska Supreme Court read that passage as dicta because the Florida Supreme Court did not apply the three-part test to its facts and lower courts have treated it inconsistently.
    • The key takeaway from Race, as applied here, is that a mere nexus is not enough; the vehicle’s use must contribute directly to the injury in some way. The asserted link in Race — a post-accident altercation escalating into a shooting — was “too tenuous.”
  • Watson v. Watson (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976):
    • A person cleaning a car accidentally shot himself when removing a pistol from under the seat. Coverage was denied; the car was the “mere physical situs” of the accident, which could have occurred anywhere the gun was located.
    • Race cited Watson approvingly. The Alaska Supreme Court embraced Watson’s core principle: no proximate cause showing is required, but there must be a causal connection beyond mere location.
  • Hutchins v. Mills (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978):
    • A hunter using a truck bed as a firing platform accidentally shot a bystander. Coverage was denied; the truck’s use as a “deer stand” was not causally connected to the injury, and the firearm was an independent cause. The shooter could as easily have fired from a stump or ladder.
    • This analogy closely informs the fireworks-from-trailer scenario: using a stationary vehicle as an elevated platform, without more, does not establish the requisite causal “use.”
  • Taylor v. Phoenix Insurance Co. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993):
    • Victim shot from an unknown vehicle while traveling on a highway; coverage denied because the fact the shooter was in a vehicle did not mean the shooting “arose out of” its use. A causal contribution (e.g., vehicle speed or movement affecting the bullet’s trajectory) might have changed the outcome.
  • Quarles v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988):
    • Coverage granted where a shotgun accidentally discharged while being unloaded from a truck’s permanent gun rack. The gun rack’s fixed integration with the truck established a significant causal connection, and transporting firearms was deemed an ordinary vehicle use.
    • Quarles exemplifies coverage when the vehicle’s design or equipment (e.g., a gun rack) is integrally tied to the injury-causing activity (loading/unloading).
  • National Merchandise Co. v. United Services Automobile Ass’n (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981):
    • Coverage granted where a child died after ingesting medication in a vehicle used primarily to transport medications. The vehicle’s customary use to transport the instrumentality of injury supported a causal link.
  • Pomerantz v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991):
    • Coverage granted where a tree limb shattered the windshield of a truck used to load logs; the injury occurred in the course of loading activities closely tied to vehicle use.
  • Valdes v. Smalley (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974), limited by later cases:
    • Coverage granted when a mug was thrown from a moving vehicle; the vehicle’s speed contributed to the mug’s velocity. Later decisions (e.g., Niglio v. Omaha Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 1996) narrowed Valdes’s expansive reading in light of Race’s causation analysis.
  • Allstate Ins. Co. v. Safer (M.D. Fla. 2004) and treatises:
    • Federal courts and Florida treatises (e.g., Sawaya) acknowledge the lack of a uniformly applied formula in Florida, but consistently reject a mere-nexus standard for UM.

Legal Reasoning

  • Standard of review and summary judgment posture: The Court reviewed summary judgment de novo, drawing inferences in the Elrods’ favor — including, for purposes of appeal, that a firework caused the eye injury. The dispute turned solely on legal interpretation of the UM clause under Florida law.
  • Choice of law: Applying Alaska’s Restatement-based conflicts approach (Palmer G. Lewis Co. v. ARCO Chemical Co.; Restatement § 188), the Court adopted Florida law given the Florida-issued policy and Florida domiciliaries.
  • Florida UM causation standard clarified:
    • Race rejected the PIP-style “some nexus” approach for UM. While Race quoted a three-part treatise test, the Alaska Supreme Court reasonably treated that passage as dicta, noting uncertainty and inconsistency in Florida courts.
    • The controlling thrust from Race and Watson is that UM coverage requires a causal connection between vehicle use and injury that is more than the vehicle serving as the location of the accident.
  • Application to facts:
    • The trailer was stationary and used as a platform to ignite fireworks. It did not transport the fireworks, the accident did not occur during loading/unloading, and the trailer’s movement or operation did not affect the projectile’s behavior.
    • By analogizing to firearm cases, the Court classified this as a “mere situs” scenario (Watson; Hutchins; Taylor), not a “vehicle-as-cause” scenario (Quarles; Pomerantz; National Merchandise) or “vehicle-motion contributed” scenario (Valdes).
    • Because the firework was an independent and intervening cause and the trailer’s “use” did not causally contribute, the injury did not “arise out of the ownership, maintenance, or use” of the trailer under Florida UM law.

Impact

Although this is a non-precedential memorandum decision in Alaska, its analysis is a careful synthesis of Florida UM jurisprudence and has practical significance for litigants and insurers dealing with Florida policies nationwide.

  • For Florida UM claims generally:
    • Reinforces that claimants must establish more than proximity or mere use of a vehicle as a platform or location. Evidence should show how the vehicle’s transportation function, integral equipment, loading/unloading, or motion contributed to the injury.
    • Underscores that plaintiffs should develop factual records connecting vehicle use to injury causation — e.g., that movement, height, structure, or integrated fixtures of the vehicle materially affected the accident.
  • For event organizers and risk managers:
    • Using a trailer as a display or launch platform will not, without more, implicate auto-based coverages. Organizers should ensure appropriate general liability or specialty coverage for fireworks-related risks.
  • For insurers:
    • Supports denial of UM claims where the vehicle is only the situs, absent proof of causal contribution. Claims handling should focus on facts showing the vehicle’s transport function, integrated equipment, loading/unloading activities, or motion.
  • Conflict-of-laws in nationwide claims:
    • Highlights that courts outside Florida will adhere to Florida UM standards for Florida-issued policies, affecting multistate litigation over out-of-state accidents.
  • Potential doctrinal development in Florida:
    • The decision illustrates persistent uncertainty in Florida’s precise test post-Race but aligns with the dominant strand rejecting a mere-nexus standard. It may add persuasive weight for courts and practitioners pressing for a causation-focused analysis.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Uninsured Motorist (UM) Coverage: A first-party auto coverage that steps in when an at-fault driver has no (or insufficient) liability insurance. The claimant must usually show the injury was caused by an “uninsured motor vehicle” and that the liability arose out of its ownership, maintenance, or use.
  • PIP vs. UM Standards: PIP (no-fault) coverage in Florida uses a liberal causation approach requiring only “some nexus” to vehicle use. Race held UM is not so liberal; the “arising out of” standard for UM is akin to liability coverage, requiring a causal connection beyond mere proximity.
  • “Arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use”: Policy language requiring a link between the vehicle’s use and the injury. Florida does not require strict proximate cause, but it does require more than the vehicle being simply the location of the injury.
  • Mere Situs Doctrine: If the vehicle only provides the setting for an accident (e.g., a gun goes off while being handled inside a parked car), coverage is typically denied because the vehicle’s use did not cause or contribute to the injury.
  • Independent/Intervening Cause: An act or instrumentality (like a mishandled gun or firework) that causes injury independent of the vehicle’s use can break the causal link to the vehicle.
  • Loading/Unloading and Transport Use: When an injury occurs during or because of loading/unloading or when the vehicle’s transport function (including integrated equipment like a gun rack) contributes to the injury, Florida courts are more likely to find coverage.
  • Summary Judgment (De Novo Review): A judgment entered when there are no genuine disputes of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Appellate de novo review means the appellate court reconsiders the legal issues afresh.
  • Choice of Law (Restatement § 188): Courts look to the state with the most significant relationship to the insurance contract (issuance, domicile, performance) to select the governing law.

Conclusion

This decision delivers a clear, practical message consistent with Florida UM jurisprudence: mere presence of a vehicle at the scene is not “use” for UM coverage. The Alaska Supreme Court, applying Florida law, held that a stationary, uninsured trailer functioning only as a fireworks platform did not causally contribute to an eye injury allegedly caused by a misfired mortar. Absent evidence that the trailer transported the fireworks, that loading/unloading was involved, that an integrated vehicle feature played a role, or that the vehicle’s motion affected the projectile, the injury did not “arise out of the ownership, maintenance, or use” of the trailer.

While non-precedential in Alaska, the opinion cogently synthesizes Florida authorities, distinguishing “mere situs” cases (Watson, Hutchins, Taylor) from those where vehicle use plays a causal part (Quarles, National Merchandise, Pomerantz, to a limited extent Valdes). It reinforces that Florida UM claims require a causal connection more substantial than a “mere nexus,” and it offers a roadmap for litigants on both sides regarding the kinds of facts that will — or will not — satisfy Florida’s “arising out of use” requirement.

Case Details

Comments