Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc. v. Amco Insurance Company
2013 Ind. LEXIS 169
| Ind. | 2013Background
- AMCO policy excludes abuse/molestation and care/custody/control, with separate occurrence coverage for bodily injury.
- R.M.H., a minor, was molested by an off-duty motel employee (Forshey) while staying at Holiday Inn Express-New Castle.
- S.H. sued Holiday Inn Express, Holiday Hospitality, and Megha in 2008 alleging battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring/retention/supervision, and related claims.
- AMCO sought declaratory judgment in 2009 that it owed no coverage or defense; trial court granted summary judgment for AMCO.
- Court of Appeals reversed, finding a genuine issue whether R.M.H. was in the care/custody/control of insureds; this Court granted transfer.
- We hold the abuse/molestation exclusion applies given that R.M.H. was in the care of the insured at the time of molestation; trial court’s summary judgement affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether abuse/molestation exclusion applies to coverage when victim was in the care/custody/control of insureds | AMCO argues victim was in care of insureds, triggering exclusion | Holiday Inn Express et al. argue facts show no undisputed care/custody/control | Yes; exclusion applies and coverage is denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Hilbert v. Conseco Serv., LLC, 836 N.E.2d 1001 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (definition of plain meaning in contract interpretation; harmonize terms)
- First Fed. Sav. Bank of Ind. v. Key Markets, Inc., 559 N.E.2d 600 (Ind.1990) (contract interpretation: ordinary meaning governs)
- Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Guzorek, 690 N.E.2d 664 (Ind.1997) (ambiguity basics; insurance contract construction)
- American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bentley, 352 N.E.2d 860 (Ind.App.1976) (application of care/custody concepts in exclusions)
- Ellis v. Luxbury Hotels, Inc., 716 N.E.2d 359 (Ind.1999) (hotel guest as business invitee; duty of care context)