Issue of fact precludes summary judgment in insurance case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Neither side in a dispute over whether a deceased man’s auto insurer should provide coverage for losses from an accident that occurred while he was driving his girlfriend’s car is entitled to summary judgment, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday. A genuine issue of material fact remains as to whether the girlfriend’s car was furnished or available for the man’s regular use.

Bradley Kinser was driving his girlfriend’s Ford Focus home after a trip to the Children’s Museum in Indianapolis. Kinser, his girlfriend Natalie Rike, and two of their children were involved in an accident with Don and Jayne Page. Everyone involved was injured and Kinser was killed.

Kinser’s insurer, Indiana Insurance Company, filed for a declaratory judgment stating that it is not required to cover any losses because Kinser’s policy excluded coverage for a vehicle furnished or available for his regular use. Kinser’s car, an SUV, was covered by his policy, but the Focus wasn’t added. Kinser and his girlfriend lived together and commuted to work together in her Focus. He would drive to work and she would drive home. Each had keys to the other’s car, but Rike said that was in case the other got locked out of his or her car. Rike said Kinser would ask for permission to use the car, wouldn’t take it without asking, and generally drove his SUV unless they were going to work.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Indiana Insurance and denied Rike and other appellants’ motion for summary judgment. The trial court said the facts showed Kinser regularly used the car and it was always available for his use.

In Estate of Bradley Kinser, et al. v. Indiana Insurance Company, No. 29A02-1009-PL-1093, the appellate judges examined the exclusion in Kinser’s policy, which said it would not provide liability coverage for any vehicle, other than the coverage car, that is “furnished or available for your regular use.” The policy doesn’t define “furnished” or “available,” but the judges cited caselaw in which the court has held that “furnish” means one is given keys to access and permission to use a given vehicle for a purpose as both the furnisher and recipient mutually understand.

The COA judges used a dictionary definition of “available” and found that although Kinser had a key and used that key to drive the car, the main reason for that key was in case of a lock out. Chief Judge Margret Robb noted that this and other nuances may affect whether the Focus was “available” for Kinser’s use.

There are genuine issues of material fact as to whether the car was furnished to or made available to Kinser, and as to whether he regularly used the Focus. The judges reversed summary judgment and remanded 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. What Mr. Bir is paying is actually Undifferentiated Family Support, which is a mixture of child support and spousal maintenance. If the courts had labeled accurately labeled the transfer payment, I think that Mr. Bir would have fewer objections to paying it because both Spousal Maintenance and Undifferentiated Family Support are tax deductions for the paying party and taxable to the receiving party. I brought this issue up with my family court judge when my voluntarily unemployed ex-wife was using the 'child support' transfer payment to support both herself and out children. Said family court judge stated that I did not know what I was talking about because I did not have a Juris Doctorate, despite my having a printout with dictionary definitions of the legal terms that I was using for documentation.

  2. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  3. 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?

  4. 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"

  5. 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?