
    Ronald FLEAGLE, Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
    No. 98-1037
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Feb. 17, 1999.
    Clarification Denied March 24, 1999.
    Arthur J. Morburger, Miami, for appellant.
    James K. Clark, Miami, for appellee.
    Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and JORGENSON and GERSTEN, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

Ronald Fleagle, the insured, appeals from an order of final summary judgment determining that his loss was not covered by his vehicle PIP policy. We reverse.

Ronald Fleagle was injured in his insured vehicle while transporting a loaded shotgun to his pastor’s church. The pastor had been counseling Fleagle regarding marital problems and depression, and asked him to store the shotgun at the church for safekeeping. Fleagle complied with his pastor’s request. He drove home; picked up the shotgun; and returned to the church. After he had parked the truck but while he was still in the vehicle, the shotgun became entangled with something inside the cab of the truck and discharged. Fleagle was shot in the leg, and the injury resulted in the amputation of that leg.

Fleagle suffered medical expenses, lost wages, and a diminished earning capacity. He sought PIP and medical payments from State Farm, his insurer. State Farm denied the claim on the ground that the injury did not result from the use, maintenance, or ownership of the vehicle. Fleagle then sued State Farm, seeking a declaration of coverage and benefits under his policy. State Farm answered and moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted the motion on the ground that the vehicle was merely the situs for the injury, and that the accident did not arise out of the use, maintenance, or ownership of the vehicle.

We reverse, and hold that the result in this case is controlled by Quarles v. State Farm, Mut Auto. Ins. Co., 533 So.2d 809 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), in which the court held that an accidental shooting occasioned by the unloading of a shotgun from a truck resulted from the ownership, maintenance, or use of the vehicle. Likewise, the accident in this ease fell within the ambit of the policy’s coverage. The injury occurred in the vehicle because the primary purpose of the trip was to transport the shotgun; the accident therefore arose out of the use of the vehicle.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

SCHWARTZ, C.J., and GERSTEN, J., concur.

JORGENSON, J., dissents with opinion.

JORGENSON, J.,

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent, and would affirm the order of summary judgment determining that there is no coverage under the policy.

The unfortunate accident in this case was caused by the careless handling of a loaded firearm, and did not result from the ownership, maintenance, or use of the motor vehicle. The pickup truck was the mere situs of the accident. While exiting the truck, Flea-gle was distracted by his dog Fish Bait, who had ridden in the truck with him. His distraction somehow caused the shotgun to discharge; even Fleagle was not able to explain precisely how the accident happened.

The court’s reliance upon Quarles v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. is misplaced. In Quarles, the fifth district held that coverage existed for injuries resulting from the shotgun accident because the truck had a gun rack permanently attached to the interior of the passenger compartment. Id. at 812. “The presence of the permanently attached gun rack in [the insured’s] truck established a significant causal connection between the use of the pickup truck and the accidental discharge of the shotgun.” Id. In this case, there was no gun rack attached to the truck. There is no indication in the record that the vehicle was ordinarily used to transport the shotgun. The truck was merely the physical situs of the accidental discharge of the weapon. See Watson v. Watson, 326 So.2d 48, 49 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). In Watson, the court held that where the decedent was fatally injured by the accidental discharge of a loaded pistol that he had been removing from the automobile, the incident did not arise out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of the motor vehicle, and thus no coverage existed under the automobile liability policy.

The car was merely the physical situs of the accidental discharge of the pistol. This could have occurred anywhere the pistol was located. The fact that the fatal event occurred at or near the car was fortuitous. There was no causal connection between it and the use of the auto.

Id. See also American States Ins. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 484 So.2d 1363 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (holding that no coverage existed where dog that was riding in back of pickup truck bit passenger who had just exited from that truck; truck was merely situs of injury).

I would affirm.  