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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?