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

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 appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT