Argonaut Insurance Co. v. Jones
953 N.E.2d 608
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- Deputy Jones, on-duty with the Monroe County Sheriff’s Department, was directing traffic at a State Road 45 accident scene when struck by Bree Myers’s vehicle and died two days later.
- Myers had bodily injury coverage up to $50,000; Deputy Jones’s vehicle was insured under an Argonaut policy with a $1,000,000 UIM endorsement.
- Jones, individually and as administrator for Deputy Jones’s estate, sued Myers, Myers’s insurer, Argonaut, and Monroe County’s umbrella carrier, seeking a declaratory judgment that Deputy Jones was an insured under Argonaut’s UIM endorsement.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Jones on UIM coverage and use of the patrol car, and entered a Declaratory Judgment that Deputy Jones’s injuries resulted from use of the patrol car.
- Argonaut appealed, challenging (1) whether Deputy Jones was an insured under the liability/UIM provisions, (2) whether her death was caused by use of the patrol car, and (3) whether an employment-exclusion precluded coverage.
- The appellate court affirms the trial court’s judgment for Jones on all issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Deputy Jones was an insured under the UIM endorsement | Jones argues Deputy Jones qualifies as an insured under the UIM coverage | Argonaut contends Deputy Jones was not using the car within policy terms and thus not insured | Yes; Deputy Jones was within use and coverage under UIM |
| Whether Deputy Jones’s injuries were caused by use of the patrol car | Evidence shows active, intended use of the car for traffic control at the scene | Argonaut asserts injuries not proximately caused by use | Yes; injuries resulted from use of the patrol car under the policy |
| Whether the employment exclusion applies to bar coverage | Exclusion would illusorily restrict coverage contrary to public policy | Exclusion should preclude coverage for injuries in the course of employment | No; exclusion does not apply under reasonable expectations of the insured |
| Whether the trial court’s declaratory judgment was proper | Judgment aligned with policy language and public policy objectives | Judgment misapplied policy terms | Proper; judgment consistent with policy and public policy |
Key Cases Cited
- Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co. v. Statesman Ins. Co., 260 Ind. 32, 291 N.E.2d 897 (Ind. 1973) (use of vehicle—‘efficient and predominating cause’ standard; coverage for use rather than mere situs)
- Campos v. Monroe Guar. Ins. Co., 582 N.E.2d 865 (Ind.Ct. App. 1991) (tow-truck operator using vehicle within scope of work; use with consent and active relationship)
- McMichael v. Colorado Cas. & Sur. Co., 906 P.2d 92 (Colo. 1995) (injuries to road worker using truck as barrier were within use/coverage; warning devices integral to work)
- Perry v. Ins. Co., — (—) ((cited) discussions on use vs. situs; reference in coverage analysis (official reporter not provided))
- Whitledge v. Jordan, 586 N.E.2d 884 (Ind.Ct.App. 1992) (public policy limits on uninsured motorist coverage; policy must reflect insured status)
- Estate of Sullivan v. Allstate Ins. Co., 841 N.E.2d 1220 (Ind.Ct. App. 2006) (use of own vehicle as passenger in another vehicle; no coverage when not using vehicle as driver)