Great Am. Ins. v. Cassell, 389 S.E.2d 476 (Va. 1990). · Go Syfert
Great Am. Ins. v. Cassell, 389 S.E.2d 476 (Va. 1990). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“use of the fire truck to extinguish the fire, control traffic and protect the fire fighters . . . was an integral part of the fire fighters' mission.”
148 citation events (62 in the last 25 years) across 20 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Gardner v. Continental Western (ca10, 2000-02-01)
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991 2008 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Gardner v. Continental Western
10th Cir. · 2000 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
use of the fire truck to extinguish the fire, control traffic and protect the fire fighters . . . was an integral part of the fire fighters' mission.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Smallwood v. Builders Mutual Insurance Company
E.D. Va. · 2024 · confidence medium
In each instance, some combination of the following was true: (1) the plaintiff/decedent was using something that had been retrieved from the insured vehicle, see Cassell, 239 Va. at 424 (noting that Cassell was filling out a required fire report that had been transported to the scene in the insured pumper truck); (2) the insured vehicle was outfitted for some special purpose and the plaintiff/decedent was explicitly utilizing it for that purpose at the time of the incident, see id. (observing that Cassell’s fire truck had its emergency lights burning and that it was overtly used as a barrie…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Rachelle R. Jackson v. Wisconsin County Mutual Insurance Corp.
Wis. · 2014 · confidence medium
Co. v. Cassell, 389 S.E.2d 476, 477 (Va. 1990) (similar holding regarding fire truck use).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Earth Tech, Inc. v. United States Fire Insurance
E.D. Va. · 2006 · confidence medium
Co. v. Cassell, 239 Va. 421, 424 , 389 S.E.2d 476, 477 (1990) (holding that a fire fighter was “using” a fire truck when he was standing 20-25 feet from the truck using a clipboard and writing pad that were stored in the truck). 11 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Butzberger v. Foster (2×)
Wash. · 2004 · confidence medium
Co. v. Cassell, 239 Va. 421 , 389 S.E.2d 476, 477 (1990)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Butzberger v. Foster (2×)
Wash. · 2004 · confidence medium
Co. v. Cassell, 239 Va. 421 , 389 S.E.2d 476, 477 (1990)).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Slagle v. Hartford Ins. Co. of the Midwest (4×)
Va. · 2004 · confidence medium
See Newman, 256 Va. at 503 , 507 S.E.2d at 349 (injured child crossing street to board school bus); Edwards, 256 Va. at 130 , 500 S.E.2d at 819-20 (injured person changed flat tire and intended to drive car to service station); Randall, 255 Va. at 63 , 496 S.E.2d at 54-55 (injured highway worker drove employer’s truck to place closure signs along highway work site); Parker, 250 Va. at 376 , 463 S.E.2d at 465 (injured landscape gardener drove company truck to work site); Cassell, 239 Va. at 422 , 389 S.E.2d at 476 (injured firefighter traveled to scene of fire in fire pump truck); Perry, 204 …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tobel v. Travelers Insurance
Ariz. Ct. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
Id. at 870 . ¶ 25 Similarly, in Great American Insurance Co. v. Cassell, 239 Va. 421 , 389 S.E.2d 476, 477 (1990), the Supreme Court of Virginia considered whether a fire fighter who was struck and killed at the scene of a car fire, while standing twenty to twenty-five feet from his fire engine and while completing a report, was “using” the fire truck at the time.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Newman v. Erie Insurance Exchange (2×)
Va. · 1998 · confidence medium
This was a logical extension of our decision in Great American Insurance Co. v. Cassell, 239 Va. 421, 424 , 389 S.E.2d 476, 477 (1990).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Edwards v. Government Employees Insurance (3×) also: Cited "see"
Va. · 1998 · confidence medium
“If the injured person is using the insured vehicle as a vehicle and as an integral part of his mission when he is injured, he is entitled to UM/UIM coverage under § 38.2-2206.” Id.; accord Parker, 250 Va. at 377-78, 463 S.E.2d at 466 ; Cassell, 239 Va. at 424 , 389 S.E.2d at 477. *133 Our decisions in Randall and Cassell are determinative of this inquiry.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stern v. THE CINCINNATI INS. CO. (2×)
Va. · 1996 · confidence medium
In arguing that Elena was “using” the school bus at the time of the accident, the Stems rely upon Great American Insurance Co. v. Cassell, 239 Va. 421, 422-23 , 389 S.E.2d 476, 476-77 (1990).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cherry v. Truck Insurance Exchange
Wash. Ct. App. · 1995 · confidence medium
Co. v. Cassell, 239 Va. 421, 424 , 389 S.E.2d 476, 477 (1990) (distinguishing Perry thus: "Unlike the police officer in Perry, Cassell [a firefighter fighting a car fire] was ["only 20 to 25 feet away from”, and] engaged *565 in a transaction essential to the use of the fire truck when he was killed”). 4 Ultimately, a strictly read "vehicle oriented” factor could create an internal inconsistency in Rau’s 4-part test.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Nationwide Mutual Ins. v. Andrews
vacc · 1991 · confidence medium
Id. at 424.
discussed Cited "see" McMichael v. Aetna Insurance Co. (2×)
Colo. Ct. App. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Great American Insurance Co. v. Cassell, 239 Va. 421 , 389 S.E.2d 476 (1990) (injuries sustained by a firefighter struck by a vehicle while writing a report 20 to 25 feet from fire truck arose out of use of fire truck); Oberkramer v. Reliance Insurance Co., supra, (injuries sustained by a police officer struck by a vehicle while positioned 25 to 50 feet from his police car, which was being used as a barricade, arose out of use of police car); see also Kohl v. Union Insurance Co., supra (injuries resulting from accidental discharge of rifle being removed from gun rack in vehicle arose out o…
Great American Insurance Company
v.
Eglena F. Cassell, Administratrix
Record 890301.
Supreme Court of Virginia.
Mar 2, 1990.
389 S.E.2d 476
S. James Thompson, Jr. (John T. Cook; Caskie & Frost, on briefs), for appellant., Jonathon S. Kurtin (Gordon H. Shapiro; Lutins and Shapiro, on brief), for appellee., Amicus Curiae: Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney (Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney, on brief), representing Virginia Municipal League and City of Roanoke, for appellee.
Hassell.
Cited by 40 opinions  |  Published
JUSTICE HASSELL

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Great American Insurance Company (Great American) filed this suit for declaratory judgment against Eglena F. Cassell, administratrix of the estate of Robert G. Cassell, deceased. Great American asked the court to adjudicate its rights and obligations pursuant to the terms of a liability insurance policy that it had issued to the City of Roanoke (City). The trial court conducted an ore tenus hearing and considered as evidence stipulations, documents, and testimony of witnesses. Some of the testimony was disputed. The trial court made the following factual findings.

On November 1, 1985, Robert Cassell, Roanoke City Fire Department captain, and several other fire fighters responded to an emergency call. A fire had occurred in a car at the intersection of Westwood Boulevard and Shenandoah Avenue in the City. Captain Cassell and some of the fire fighters traveled to the scene in a fire pumper truck. They were followed by a fire tanker. The fire pumper truck and the fire tanker were owned by the City. Cassell was the senior officer in charge.

Cassell’s fire pumper truck was parked in the eastbound lane of traffic on Shenandoah Avenue, halfway on the adjacent shoulder with its lights on. The fire truck (pumper) was approximately 20 to 25 feet from the disabled car. The car was facing west, straddling the center line. The other fire truck (tanker) was located on the opposite side of the disabled car, facing west. The fire trucks were being used to restrict or influence the flow of traffic and to provide a protective barrier for the fire fighters.

A booster line, which is a small fire hose connected to the pumper truck that transported Cassell to the scene, was used to extinguish the fire. The water that was used to put out the fire came from Cassell’s truck rather than a street hydrant. Cassell used a crowbar that he had taken from the pumper truck to open the hood of the disabled car.

[*423] Cassell was standing in the westbound lane of traffic with Harvey Helm (another fire fighter) and Brenda Downs (owner of the disabled car). Cassell was using a writing pad and a clipboard that he had taken from the fire truck to complete a required fire report. The clipboard was stored on Cassell’s fire truck and transported to the scene in that truck. Cassell was approximately 20 to 25 feet away from his fire truck when he was struck and killed by a speeding hit-and-run driver. Helm and Downs were also killed by the driver. The other fire fighters who assisted in extinguishing the fire were taking equipment back to the fire truck when Cassell, Helm, and Downs were killed.

In May, 1986, Cassell’s administratrix filed a wrongful death action against Roger White, the alleged hit-and-run driver. At the time of the accident, Great American had issued a policy of liability insurance to the City. Cassell’s administratrix contends that Great American’s policy provided Cassell uninsured motorist coverage for this accident. Great American maintains that it has no obligations to Cassell because the fire truck was not being “used” as contemplated by Code § 38.1-381(c) (amended to § 38.2-2206B). [1] The trial court held that the fire truck was being “used” by Cassell and therefore coverage was applicable. We accept the trial court’s factual determinations because there is ample evidence in the record to support them. Code § 8.01-680. The single issue that we consider in this appeal is whether Cassell’s death arose out of the “use” of the fire truck.

In Insurance Company of North America v. Perry, Administrator, 204 Va. 833, 134 S.E.2d 418 (1964), we considered whether a police officer, who had left his police car to serve a warrant, was “using” the car at the time he was struck and killed by a motorist. Peterson, the decedent, was on duty as a police officer for the City of Norfolk. He drove a city-owned police cruiser to a neighborhood to serve a warrant. He parked the cruiser, placed the keys in his pocket, and got out of the cruiser. He and another officer walked down the road approximately 164 feet away from the police cruiser. He was killed when he was struck by a car. Id. at 834, 134 S.E.2d at 419. We held that the police officer was not a user of the car because he was 164 feet away from the parked car,[*424] engaged in the act of serving a warrant. Id. at 838, 134 S.E.2d at 421.

We agree with the trial court’s finding that Cassell was an insured for purposes of the mandatory uninsured motorist coverage provided in Code § 38.1-381(c). Cassell was using the fire truck when he was struck and killed by the hit-and-run driver. The fire fighters parked the fire pumper and fire tanker on opposite sides of the disabled car, thereby creating a barrier to control traffic and protect the fire fighters. Cassell’s fire truck was used to pump water (which was stored on the truck) through hoses to extinguish the fire. The clipboard and pad that were used to complete the required fire report were transported to the scene in the fire truck and were to be returned to the fire truck. Cassell was only 20 to 25 feet away from the fire truck when he was struck. Items which were taken from Cassell’s truck to extinguish the fire were being returned to the truck when the accident occurred. Use of the fire truck to extinguish the fire, control traffic and protect the fire fighters, including Cassell, was an integral part of the fire fighters’ mission. The mission had not been completed when the accident occurred. Unlike the police officer in Perry, Cassell was engaged in a transaction essential to the use of the fire truck when he was killed.

Accordingly, the decree of the trial court is

Affirmed.

1

Section 38.1-381(c) defines “insured” as “any person who uses with the consent, express or implied, of a named insured, the motor vehicle to which the policy applies . . . .”