ILNews

Appellate court finds garage insurance policy doesn’t cover injuries

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

For only the second time, the Indiana Court of Appeals has addressed the language in a garage insurance policy, and upheld partial summary judgment in favor of the insurer.

Judge Edward Najam wrote in Patrice Cotton v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company, No. 49A02-1005-CT-575, that only once before has the Court of Appeals considered language similar to that found in the garage policy issued by Auto-Owners Insurance Co. held by dealer Jim Bailey. Bailey had given his grandson a temporary license plate from his dealership to use on his car, but the car was not connected in any other way to the dealership. While Patrice Cotton was riding in the car, the grandson hit a bridge embankment and Cotton was injured.

She sued the grandson, Auto-Owners, Jim Bailey Auto Sales, and Jim Bailey. She believed Bailey’s garage policy provided coverage for her injuries because Bailey provided the dealership’s temporary license plate. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to Auto-Owners and also denied Cotton’s motion to strike Bailey’s affidavit. He died during the discovery process.

The garage policy provides coverage for “automobile dealer, repair shop, service station, storage garage, or public parking place, and all operations which are necessary or incidental thereto, including (1) the ownership, maintenance or use of any automobile in connection with the foregoing.” In Automobile Underwriters Inc. v. Hitch, 169 Ind. App. 453, 349 N.E.2d 271 (1976), the Court of Appeals considered similar language in a suit filed after someone was injured by using reloaded shotgun shells Hitch sold out of his garage storefront.

The Hitch court held that Hitch’s insurance policy language wasn’t ambiguous and the only reasonable interpretation of the policy is that the sale of shotgun shells isn’t necessary or incidental to the use of the premises for operating a garage. The appellate judges found Hitch to apply to the instant case, and also cited a very similar case to Cotton’s from North Carolina, McLeod v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 444 S.E.2d 487 (N.C. Ct. App. 1994). That court concluded that a third party’s use of a dealer license tag on his personal vehicle wasn’t considered necessary or incidental to a garage business.

“The mere fact that the Dealer provided a temporary license plate for a vehicle does not bring that vehicle within the coverage of the garage policy,” wrote Judge Najam on Cotton’s suit. “Generally speaking, to provide a temporary license plate may well be incidental to a licensed auto dealer’s business, but Auto-Owners’ garage policy provides coverage only if the plate is used ‘in connection with’ the business operations.”

The appellate court also upheld the denial of Cotton’s motion to strike Bailey’s affidavit.

“To the extent the statements in the affidavit regard the operations of the Dealer, including its inventory, sales, and employees, the Dealer’s business records or the testimony of a Dealer employee would be admissible proof of such matters. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to strike those portions of the Bailey Affidavit,” he wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT