ILNews

Appellate court reverses summary judgment for insurer

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment in favor of a hotel’s insurance company in a negligent hiring suit, ruling there is a question as to whether the teenage hotel guest was under the “care, custody or control” of the hotel at the time the teen was molested by an employee.

The parent of R.H.M., a 15-year-old guest at the Holiday Inn Express of New Castle, sued the hotel, its parent company and employee Michael Forshey after R.H.M. was molested by Forshey. AMCO Insurance Co. sought a declaratory judgment action that its policy with Holiday Inn doesn’t provide coverage to any of the defendants. The trial court granted summary judgment to AMCO.

The hotel parent company, Holiday Hospitality, argued that the trial court was wrong in concluding the molestation wasn’t an “occurrence” as that term is defined in the policy. The appellate court agreed with Holiday Hospitality, citing Wayne Township Bd. Of Sch. Commissioners v. Indiana Insurance Co., 650 N.E.2d 1205, 1209 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995). The COA concluded in that case that due to a separation of insureds provision in the township’s insurance policy, the actions of the school board commissioners may have been accidental even though the principal’s action of molesting a minor in his office were intentional. AMCO’s insurance policy also contained a separation of insureds provision.

The judges noted that only once have the state appellate courts specifically addressed whether an employer’s negligent hiring or supervision of an employee could be accidental. They adopted the analysis in American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bower, 752 F.Supp.2d 957 (N.D. Ind. 2010), a negligence supervision suit brought against parents Michael and Anne Bower after their son molested a minor. That court held in light of Indiana’s construction of ambiguous insurance policies against the insurance company, where a severability provision exists, no evidence is designated showing the defendants intended or expected their son Jonathan to molest the minor when they allegedly acted negligently and the term “accident” is not further defined in the policy and is “susceptible to differing reasonable interpretations,” then the alleged negligent conduct constitutes an “occurrence” for purposes of the insurance policy.  

The separation of insureds provision allows the finding of an “occurrence” regarding Holiday Hospital’s action even if Forshey’s actions don’t amount to an accident; there is ambiguity in the insurance policy; and without evidence that the employer intended or expected the sexual misconduct to result, it can’t be deemed intentional, wrote Chief Judge Margret Robb in Holiday Hospitality Franchising Inc. v. AMCO Insurance Company, No. 33A01-1103-CT-104.

The judges also concluded there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether R.M.H. was in the “care, custody or control” of Holiday Inn, Holiday Hospitality or any other insured. There are exclusions in the insurance policy for abuse or molestation that occur while the person is in the care, custody or control of any of the insured.

While AMCO may be correct that the teen was a business invitee of the hotel and was owed a duty of reasonable care, that is not the same as being “in the care, custody or control” of Holiday Inn, wrote Robb.

“In the context of a hotel, it would require something additional, such as a minor being supervised by hotel employees. Thus, AMCO has not demonstrated that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law,” she wrote. The judges remanded the case for further proceedings.

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT