ILNews

Court: team-building activity not under insured conditions

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals today affirmed summary judgment in favor of an insurance company, noting a soccer team’s accident while traveling to an activity outside of the trip’s purpose was not covered.

In Sarah Haag, et al. v. Mark Castro, The Indiana Youth Soccer Association, Virginia Surety Co, Inc., et al., No. 29A04-1001-CT-10, the panel disagreed about what constituted “used in the business of.”

Members of the Carmel Commotion Soccer Team traveled in June 2004 to Colorado for a soccer tournament. During a pre-planned time for an unspecified “team activity,” the coach, Mark Castro, and team members decided to go on a white-water rafting trip and used the passenger van the coach had rented in Colorado for use during the tournament. While traveling to raft, the van collided with another vehicle and team members were injured.

Team members in June 2006 filed a complaint for declaratory relief seeking a declaration that Virginia Surety’s policy, which was secured through the Indiana Youth Soccer Association, provided coverage for the team members while the coach drove them to the team-building white-water rafting activity.

The policy provided for business auto coverage and extended coverage – under certain conditions – for liability out of the use of a vehicle. This covered “Named Insured, member associations and its clubs, leagues, teams, employees, volunteers, executive officers, directors, shareholders, therein but only while the automobile is being used in the business of the Named Insured. … App. p. 101 (emphasis added).”

Virginia Surety filed for summary judgment and evidentiary designation denying coverage to the team members for their injuries sustained in the collision. Team members filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment in Virginia Surety’s favor Dec. 10, 2009.

The appellate court focused on the meaning of “used in the business of” and whether the coach’s use of the van was “in the business of the Named Insured” at the time of the accident.

“Because the designated evidence does not establish that the IYSA had the right to control Carmel Commotion’s activities while attending the out-of-state soccer tournament, we conclude that Castro was not using the rented van 'in the business of' the IYSA when he was transporting the team to a white water rafting activity unrelated to the out-of-state soccer tournament the team received the IYSA’s permission to attend. Under the terms of the Virginia Surety insurance policy and the facts and circumstances before us, we hold that Castro’s use of the van was not covered under the policy. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Virginia Surety,” wrote Judge Paul Mathias, with which Judge Cale Bradford concurred.

Judge Patricia Riley, however, dissented.

In the dissent, she wrote, the IYSA “clearly had the right to control Carmel Commotion’s out-of-state participation and the time spent while partaking in the tournament. Not only was Carmel Commotion required to receive IYSA’s permission prior to attending, but it also had to pay fees and the Team Members were required to carry certain documents with them. Regardless of its awareness of Carmel Commotion’s team building activity on June 12, 2004, the IYSA was in control of the trip because the IYSA could have withheld the permit to travel, as was its right; however, by issuing the permit they implicitly and without any limitations assured that the Team Members were insured during the duration of the trip.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT