Albert C. Gentry, II v. Nora Day, and Sean Boomquist Nora Day v. Sean R. Bloomquist, 22 N.E.3d 710

Bloomquist hosted a party at his father’s Pittsboro home with no adult supervision present.
Bloomquist, Nathan Gentry, and Gaddie gave Stamm money to buy a case of beer; Stamm bought it and kept it in his car trunk.
Beer was consumed by several attendees, including Hubbard, who was intoxicated and under 21 at the time.
Bloomquist allegedly gave Hubbard permission to drink the beer and was with Hubbard throughout the party.
Hubbard drove away the next morning, lost control of the vehicle, and Nathan Gentry died in the crash.
Gentry sued Bloomquist (and others); Bloomquist moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted; on appeal, the decision was reversed and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Bloomquist furnish alcohol to Hubbard with actual knowledge of intoxication?	Gentry contends Bloomquist was the active means of furnishing.	Bloomquist argues he did not furnish alcohol as a matter of law.	Summary judgment improper; material facts exist for trial.
Whether Bloomquist’s conduct could be considered furnishing under the statute and is a genuine issue of material fact?	Evidence supports Bloomquist as active means of furnishing.	Evidence insufficient to prove furnishing as a matter of law.	Issue of furnishing fact-bound; remand for trial.

Rauck v. Hawn, 564 N.E.2d 334 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (active means concept for furnishing alcohol to intoxicated person)
Brattain v. Herron, 309 N.E.2d 150 (Ind. App. 1974) (instructive on liability for furnishing alcohol to underage driver)
Bowling v. Popp, 536 N.E.2d 511 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989) (summary judgment vs. guests who helped themselves to beer; furnishing issues)
Lather v. Berg, 521 N.E.2d 755 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988) (illustrates furnishing concept under statutes)
Estate of Cummings by Heck v. PPG Indus., Inc., 651 N.E.2d 305 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (civil liability for third-party injuries under furnishing statutes)