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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT