113 N.E.3d 630
Ind. Ct. App.2018Background
- Basham owned 15 rental properties insured under a single Berkshire Hathaway policy effective Nov. 17, 2016–Nov. 17, 2017; Berkshire issued a separate declaration page for each property.
- The Elwood premises (Premises No. 15, Building No. 1) included a residential house and a detached garage; the declarations identified the building/occupancy as the rental dwelling (singular).
- A fire on Dec. 30, 2016 destroyed the detached garage and damaged the house; Berkshire paid for the house but denied coverage for the detached garage.
- Berkshire’s policy covered "Covered Property" defined as the "Building, meaning the building or structure described in the Declarations, including: (1) Completed additions." The policy did not define "completed addition."
- Basham sued, moved for partial summary judgment arguing the policy covered the garage (or was ambiguous and should be construed for the insured); Berkshire cross-moved asserting the garage was neither the declared "building" nor a "completed addition."
- The trial court found the policy ambiguous, construed it for the insured, entered summary judgment for Basham, and denied Berkshire’s motion; Berkshire appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the detached garage is covered as the "Building" under the declarations | Basham: the garage is a building at the declared premises and thus covered | Berkshire: the declarations describe a single building (the dwelling); garage is not the "building or structure described in the Declarations" | Court: garage is not the declared "Building" because declarations describe the dwelling only |
| Whether the detached garage is covered as a "completed addition" | Basham: "completed addition" can include a separate/supplementary structure; ambiguous term should be construed for insured | Berkshire: "addition" means a part added to the building (physically attached); term unambiguous and excludes detached garage | Court: "completed addition" is ambiguous (can mean attached or separate); construing ambiguity against insurer, garage is covered |
| Whether the policy language is ambiguous | Basham: policy ambiguous as to "completed addition" and thus interpretation favors insured | Berkshire: policy unambiguous; plain meaning excludes detached structures | Court: reasonable policyholders could differ; ambiguity exists as to "completed addition" |
| Entitlement to summary judgment | Basham: she is entitled because ambiguity construed for insured establishes coverage | Berkshire: entitled because policy unambiguously excludes detached garage | Court: affirmed trial court — summary judgment for Basham and denial of Berkshire’s motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Tharp, 914 N.E.2d 756 (Ind. 2009) (summary-judgment standard and drawing inferences for nonmoving party)
- McSwane v. Bloomington Hosp. & Healthcare Sys., 916 N.E.2d 906 (Ind. 2009) (appellate review of summary judgment and nonmovant’s burden on appeal)
- Wagner v. Yates, 912 N.E.2d 805 (Ind. 2009) (interpretation of insurance policies as questions of law amenable to summary judgment)
- Thomson Inc. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 11 N.E.3d 982 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (policy ambiguity assessed from perspective of ordinary policyholder)
- Am. Access Cas. Co. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 103 N.E.3d 644 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (contract construction principles for insurance policies)