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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT