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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT