The insurer argued that the policy did not provide coverage due to an exclusion applying to bodily injuries arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of motor vehicles. The claimant argued that the exclusion did not apply because the phrase "use of a motor vehicle" was ambiguous and that Buckbee's truck was not being used as a motor vehicle in an ordinary way.

 The appeals court noted that the phrase "use of a motor vehicle" was not defined in the homeowners policy, but that the court has in prior cases defined the term "use" to mean "to employ for some purpose". The court went on to state that while an exact or bright-line definition of the term is elusive and dependent to a great extent on the circumstances of the case, there are guidelines to follow in order to establish whether an injury arose out of the use of an auto. These guidelines are: the physical proximity of the injury site to the vehicle; the nature of the conduct that caused the situation of jeopardy; and, whether the vehicle was being utilized in the plain and ordinary sense of the word. The court added that, in evaluating physical proximity, it considered more than how close the vehicle was to the accident scene because "use" also embraces the notion that the person using the vehicle had control over it or that such control was reasonably at hand.

 Applying those considerations in this case, the court concluded that the phrase "use of a motor vehicle" was not ambiguous and that Buckbee's truck was in use at the time of the accident. The facts showed that the truck was at or near the location of the accident, that Buckbee had control of the truck at that time, and that his operation of the truck was the conduct that caused the accident. Under these circumstances, there was no doubt on the part of the appeals court that the truck was in use.

 Hays also contended that the exclusion does not apply because the truck was not the predominating cause of the accident. The court disagreed. Applying the "but for" analysis to the case, the court said that Hays's injuries would not have occurred but for the use of the truck. The deer stand would not have fallen over but for Buckbee putting the truck in gear and pressing the accelerator to pull the rope. Because the insurance policy specifically excluded any claim arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify Buckbee.

 The ruling of the trial court was affirmed.

 Editor's Note: Court rulings abound on the meaning of "use of a motor vehicle". Some courts have an expanded view of the term and others do not. The Georgia Court of Appeals listed three items to consider in determining the meaning, and since insurance policies usually do not offer any definition of the phrase, the items offer valuable guidelines for insureds and insurers. Of course, as the court noted, an exact or bright-line definition of the term is elusive and is dependent to a great extent on the circumstances of the case.