Affirmative Insurance v. Cruz-Campos

THIS OPINION HAS NO
PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY
PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Affirmative
Insurance Services, Inc., Respondent,

v.

Salvador
Cruz-Campos,

Appeal From Jasper County

D. Craig Brown, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-308

Submitted May 1, 2012 – Filed May 16, 2012   

AFFIRMED

Darrell Thomas Johnson Jr., of
Hardeeville, for Appellant.

Darra J. Coleman and James K. Cluverius
Jr., of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Salvador Cruz-Campos (Campos) appeals the
trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Affirmative Insurance
Services, Inc. (Affirmative), arguing the trial court erred in finding Campos's
injuries did not arise out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of an uninsured vehicle.  We affirm.[1]

"An appellate court
reviews the grant of summary judgment under the same standard applied by the
[trial] court."  Harbit v. City of Charleston, 382 S.C. 383, 389,
675 S.E.2d 776, 779 (Ct. App. 2009).  The trial court should grant summary
judgment "if 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 the moving party is entitled to
a judgment as a matter of law."  Rule 56(c), SCRCP.  "In determining
whether any triable issues of fact exist, the evidence and all reasonable
inferences must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party."  Harbit, 382 S.C. at 389-90, 675 S.E.2d at 779. 

"An insured is legally
entitled to recover damages arising out of the 'ownership, maintenance, or use'
of an uninsured vehicle."  State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Aytes,
332 S.C. 30, 33, 503 S.E.2d 744, 745 (1998) (citing S.C. Code Ann. § 38-77-140
(1989)).  In South Carolina, the following three prong test is used for
determining when an injury arises out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of
an uninsured vehicle:  (1) the party seeking coverage must establish a
connection between the vehicle and the injury; (2) there must exist no act of
independent significance breaking the causal link; and (3) it must be shown the
vehicle was being used for transportation at the time of the assault.  Id. 
"The causal connection is established where it can be shown the vehicle
was an 'active accessory' to the assault[,]" and the injury "must be
foreseeably identifiable with the normal use of the vehicle."  Id. at 33, 503 S.E.2d at 745-46.   

Here, Campos, Jorge Luna, Carlos
Abarca, and other unidentified individuals became involved in a physical
altercation outside of their vehicles.  The altercation quickly escalated and
resulted in the shootings of Campos and Luna, which also occurred outside of the
subject vehicles.  Thus, because there was no evidence the vehicles were active
accessories to the assault or that Campos's injuries were "foreseeably
identifiable with the normal use" of the vehicles, no causal connection
between Campos's injuries and the uninsured vehicles was established.  See id.  Further, even if a causal connection was established, it was broken
when the assailants exited their vehicles.  Moreover, there was no evidence the
subject vehicles were being used for transportation at the time of Campos's
injuries.  

Accordingly, the trial court
properly granted Affirmative's motion for summary judgment because there was no
genuine issue of material fact whether Campos's injuries arose out of the
ownership, maintenance, or use of an uninsured vehicle. 

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and
LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to
Rule 215, SCACR.