103 N.E.3d 644
Ind. Ct. App.2018Background
- On Aug. 4, 2013, Jairiel Berfect (driving her personal vehicle) struck bicyclist Roland Hall while traveling between home-health visits for Advantage Home Health Care (Advantage Home). Berfect and the vehicle owner, Demelece Stewart, were insured by American Access; Advantage Home was insured by Cincinnati Insurance.
- Berfect was a part‑time home health aide paid only for on‑premises patient services; travel time and mileage between patients were not compensated.
- Hall sued Berfect and Advantage Home. Cincinnati (Advantage Home's insurer) filed a third‑party declaratory judgment action against American Access seeking determinations about defense/indemnity and priority of coverage.
- The trial court held American Access had a duty to defend Advantage Home under Berfect/Stewart policies and denied American Access's summary judgment that an exclusion for "business use" barred coverage.
- American Access appealed, arguing the policy exclusion (excluding vehicles "while used in the delivery, or any activity associated with delivery, of food, mail, newspapers, magazines, or packages for an employer or business or in any trade or business") precludes coverage when the vehicle is used for business purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the policy's business‑use exclusion bars coverage to Cincinnati (Advantage Home) | The exclusion is ambiguous and does not apply because Berfect was not making deliveries and was unpaid for travel time; exclusion must clearly apply to exclude coverage | The exclusion operates as a broad business‑use exclusion covering any time the vehicle is used for trade or business, including travel between work sites | Court held exclusion must be harmonized with its delivery language; phrase "or in any trade or business" references delivery context, not a blanket business‑use bar; exclusion did not apply, so duty to defend remains |
Key Cases Cited
- Briles v. Wausau Ins. Companies, 858 N.E.2d 208 (Ind. Ct. App.) (insurance policy interpretation follows contract rules; ambiguity construed against insurer)
- Asbury v. Indiana Union Mut. Ins. Co., 441 N.E.2d 232 (Ind. Ct. App.) (exclusions must clearly and unmistakably apply to preclude coverage)
- First Farmers Bank & Trust Co. v. Whorley, 891 N.E.2d 604 (Ind. Ct. App.) (summary judgment standards and appellate review of trial court rulings)