Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Bill Gaddis Chrysler Dodge, Inc., Garrett Gaddis and Edward Foster
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 419
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Auto-Owners seeks declaratory judgment to determine no liability coverage under dealership policies for Foster's injuries from Garrett's accident.
- Garrett, 18, bought a 1996 Honda from Bill Gaddis Dodge; payment was charged to Scott's dealership account and title/registration/insurance were not transferred or obtained.
- Garrett drove the car without proper registration or insurance and while using a temporary dealer plate.
- Garrett stole the keys and, after injuring Foster, fled but later surrendered to police.
- Auto-Owners defended Garrett under a reservation of rights and moved for summary judgment; Foster opposed.
- The trial court denied Auto-Owners' motions and extended Foster's response deadline; Auto-Owners sought to strike Foster's response and designated evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion denying strikes | Auto-Owners argues untimely and unauthenticated evidence prejudices it. | Foster's response and evidence were timely and proper, with some late-authenticated items permissible. | No reversible error; extensions were timely and some unauthenticated exhibits were curable. |
| Whether summary judgment was proper given ownership and insured status | Garrett owned the car; thus no coverage under garage policy. | Ownership and insured status are genuine issues; dealership may have owned the car and Garrett may be an insured user. | Summary judgment precluded; genuine issues of material fact exist on ownership and Garrett's status under the garage policy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coleman v. Charles Court, LLC, 797 N.E.2d 775 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (trial court abuse of discretion in striking requires prejudicial error)
- Indiana Univ. Med. Ctr. v. Logan, 728 N.E.2d 855 (Ind. 2000) (unsworn statements and unverified exhibits not proper Rule 56 evidence)
- GDC Envtl. Servs. Inc. v. Ransbottom Landfill, 740 N.E.2d 1254 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (utilizes trial court findings to aid de novo review of summary judgment)
- Crum v. City of Terre Haute ex rel. Dep’t of Redev., 812 N.E.2d 164 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (clarifies standard for de novo review when facts are undisputed)
- Knoebel v. Clark County Superior Court No. 1, 901 N.E.2d 529 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (burden-shifting framework in summary judgment analysis)
- Dreaded, Inc. v. St. Paul Guardian Ins. Co., 904 N.E.2d 1267 (Ind. 2009) (summary judgment standard: burden on movant and non-movant to present genuine issues)