Justices divided on whether accident is covered by policy

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court ruled 3-1 Tuesday that an insurer for the Indiana Youth Soccer Association does not have to provide coverage for an accident involving a Carmel team during a trip to Colorado for a soccer tournament.

Justice Frank Sullivan Jr. authored the majority opinion, which found the insurance policy provided by Virginia Surety was unambiguous and did not require the insurer to provide coverage for the youth who were injured in the accident. Team members of Carmel Commotion, which is affiliated with IYSA, were in a rented van driven by their coach, Mark Castro, on their way to a “team-building” activity of white-water rafting when the van was in an accident.

The injured players and their parents sued Castro and IYSA’s insurance carrier seeking a declaration that IYSA’s insurance policy through Virginia Surety provided coverage while Castro drove the team to the white-water rafting activity. The trial court granted summary judgment to Virginia Surety; a divided Indiana Court of Appeals panel affirmed.

Examining the commercial lines policy at issue, the justices concluded that the accident did not occur while the van was being “used in the business of” IYSA. The high court deduced using the IYSA’s organizational documents that the association has three lines of business: promoting soccer; regulating competition, leagues, teams and players; and conducting specific events. For the policy to provide coverage for the accident, the van had to be used in one of those three lines of business. At the time of the accident the team nor Castro were doing any of those three things, so the accident wasn’t covered, wrote Sullivan in Sarah Haag, et al. v. Mark Castro, The Indiana Youth Soccer Association, Virginia Surety Company, Inc., et al., No. 29S04-1102-CT-118.

“Carmel Commotion’s ‘business’ is competing – along with the practicing, ‘team-building,’ and the like that comes with it. And while the IYSA promotes tournaments and regulates who plays in tournaments and even sponsors tournaments … the IYSA itself does not compete. The IYSA promotes soccer. It regulates playing soccer. It conducts soccer tournaments. But when an IYSA-registered team, with the help of its coach, competes in a tournament (even a tournament sponsored or sanctioned by the IYSA), the team is engaged in its own business, not that of the IYSA,” he wrote.

Justice Brent Dickson dissented because he found the policy to be ambiguous and should be construed to provide coverage under Indiana law. He disagreed with the majority’s narrow characterization of the “business” of the IYSA, and he wrote Virginia Surety should have clarified in its policy that travel to “team-building events” away from the soccer field should be excluded from coverage.

Justice Steven David did not participate.



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. This state's high court has spoken, the fair question is answered. Years ago the Seventh Circuit footnoted the following in the context of court access: "[2] Dr. Bowman's report specifically stated that Brown "firmly believes he is obligated as a Christian to put obedience to God's laws above human laws." Dr. Bowman further noted that Brown expressed "devaluing attitudes towards pharmacological or psycho-therapeutic mental health treatment" and that he made "sarcastic remarks devaluing authority of all types, especially mental health authority and the abortion industry." 668 F.3d 437 (2012) SUCH acid testing of statist orthodoxy is just and meet in Indiana. SUCH INQUISITIONS have been green lighted. Christians and conservatives beware.

  2. It was all that kept us from tyranny. So sad that so few among the elite cared enough to guard the sacred trust. Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. Sophocles No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor. Theodore Roosevelt That was the ideal ... here is the Hoosier reality: The King can do no wrong. Legal maxim From the Latin 'Rex non potest peccare'. When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal. Richard Nixon

  3. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  4. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  5. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.