Estate of Kinser v. Indiana Insurance Co.
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 932
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Kinser died in a car crash while driving the Focus in which the parties had an ongoing relationship.
- Kinser and Rike lived together; Kinser owned a Trailblazer (Indiana policy) and Rike owned the Focus (Erie policy).
- The Focus was used for commuting and errands; Kinser often drove the Focus but also used the Trailblazer.
- Kinser allegedly had permission to use the Focus; Rike testified Kinser asked for permission and was granted it.
- Kinser was killed and injuries occurred to others in the Focus accident; Indiana Insurance sought declaratory relief to exclude coverage under its policy.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Indiana; the appellate court reversed and remanded for factual resolution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the exclusion applies to the Focus as furnished or available for Kinser’s regular use. | Kinser did not have the Focus furnished or available for regular use. | The Focus was furnished or available for Kinser’s regular use under the policy. | Genuine issue of material fact remains. |
| Whether Kinser regularly used the Focus, a fact integral to the exclusion’s scope. | Kinser regularly used the Focus for errands and work-related travel. | Usage history is unclear; whether regular use existed is disputed. | Genuine issue of material fact remains. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Allstate Ins. Co., 681 N.E.2d 220 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (furnish meaning; application to regular use exclusion based on access/permission)
- Earl v. Am. States Preferred Ins. Co., 744 N.E.2d 1025 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (exclusion valid to prevent double coverage for regularly used non-owned vehicle)
- City of Lawrenceburg v. Milestone Contractors, L.P., 809 N.E.2d 879 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (avoid rendering contract terms meaningless; interpretive caution)
- Buckeye State Mut. Ins. Co. v. Carfield, 914 N.E.2d 315 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (general rules of contract interpretation; insurance exclusions must be clear)
- Asbury v. Indiana Union Mut. Ins. Co., 441 N.E.2d 232 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982) (policy exclusions must clearly bring the described act within scope)