Grange Mutual Insurance Company and Fieldstar, Inc. v. Faye L. Kessler and William J. Kessler (mem. dec.), 22A01-1702-CT-376

Fieldstar, an Indiana company, contracted informally with Rick Day to perform three roles: repair Fieldstar vehicles through his auto shop, transport vehicles between Fieldstar locations, and sell Fieldstar vehicles (receiving commissions).
On Jan. 12, 2013, Fieldstar paid Day $775 to move trucks and cars; Day engaged Aaron Weddle to drive a Chevrolet Aveo from Bloomington to Day’s New Albany shop.
While en route, Weddle crossed the center line and collided head-on with a vehicle driven by Faye Kessler (with passenger William Charles), causing suit against Fieldstar, its insurer Grange, Day, Weddle, and others.
Fieldstar’s Grange auto policy covered permissive users but excluded persons using a covered auto while working in a business of selling, servicing, repairing, parking, or storing autos unless that business was the insured’s.
Fieldstar (with Grange) moved for summary judgment arguing Weddle was excluded as acting to further Day’s independent auto-repair/sale business; the trial court denied summary judgment, finding coverage for Weddle was not foreclosed as a matter of law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Weddle was an “insured” under Fieldstar’s policy or excluded because he was working in a business of selling/repairing autos	Kessler: Weddle was merely transporting Fieldstar’s vehicle and not engaged in an independent repair/sales business; thus covered	Fieldstar/Grange: Weddle acted for Day’s independent auto repair/sales business (Day hired Weddle), so exclusion applies	Denied summary judgment for Fieldstar — genuine factual disputes exist whether Weddle acted to further Day’s independent business or Fieldstar’s vehicle-selling operations; coverage question unsuitable for resolution as a matter of law

Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000 (Ind. 2014) (summary judgment standard errs on allowing marginal cases to proceed)
Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc. v. AMCO Ins. Co., 983 N.E.2d 574 (Ind. 2013) (contract interpretation is a question of law suited for de novo review)
Warrick County ex rel. Conner v. Hill, 973 N.E.2d 1138 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (contract may be construed on summary judgment absent ambiguity requiring extrinsic evidence)
Tate v. Secura Ins., 587 N.E.2d 665 (Ind. 1992) (ambiguity requiring extrinsic evidence makes meaning for factfinder)
SCI Propane, LLC v. Frederick, 39 N.E.3d 675 (Ind. 2015) (cross-motions for summary judgment evaluated separately)
Mid-America Sound Corp. v. Ind. State Fair Comm’n (In re Ind. State Fair Litigation), 49 N.E.3d 545 (Ind. 2016) (summary judgment principles reiterated)
Am. Fam. Ins. Co. v. Nat’l Ins. Ass’n, 577 N.E.2d 969 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (exclusions apply when use is to effectuate a third party’s independent auto business)
Truck Ins. Exch. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 538 P.2d 529 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975) (same principle on exclusions for independent auto businesses)