Johnson v. The Florists' Mutual Insurance Company, 0:14-cv-00066

On Nov. 3, 2012 Pamela Johnson was severely injured in an Ohio car crash while driving a 2011 Ford Expedition owned by her husband; the at-fault driver was underinsured and intoxicated.
Johnson had been on a business trip for her employer (Johnson's Nursery / Pam's Primitives) hauling merchandise on a 16-foot trailer when the accident occurred.
Hortica insured Johnson's business under a commercial auto policy (Sept. 2012–Sept. 2013) listing three covered vehicles (1997 Chevrolet, 1991 Chevrolet, 2006 Ford F-350) but not the 2011 Ford Expedition involved in the crash.
Hortica denied underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage for Johnson's loss on the ground the Expedition was not a covered auto or an eligible “temporary substitute” and was owned by a family member.
Cross-motions for summary judgment followed; the district court applied Kentucky law and examined whether the Expedition qualified as a temporary substitute and whether the policy language was ambiguous.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 2011 Expedition was a “temporary substitute” for a covered auto under the UIM endorsement	Johnson: covered trucks were out of service, so the Expedition was a temporary substitute and thus insured	Hortica: the Expedition was routinely used for hauling (multiple times in 2012) and not a temporary replacement for covered autos	Court: Not temporary — Johnson used the Expedition repeatedly and it was her regular vehicle for hauling, so no substitute status
Whether the policy language (Drive Other Car endorsement) is ambiguous and must be construed for coverage	Johnson: endorsement wording is unclear/ambiguous and should be interpreted in favor of coverage	Hortica: endorsement is clear — it covers named individuals when occupying non‑owned cars except cars owned by the individual or family members	Court: Language is unambiguous; read plainly it excludes vehicles owned by the insured or family member, so no coverage

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (summary judgment evidence view)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (need for non‑speculative evidence to survive summary judgment)
Eyler v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 824 S.W.2d 855 (Ky. 1992) (insurance exclusions strictly construed against insurer when policy ambiguous)
Peoples Bank & Trust Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 113 F.3d 629 (6th Cir. 1997) (canons of construction apply only if contract ambiguous)
Pierce v. West Am. Ins. Co., 655 S.W.2d 747 (Ky. Ct. App. 1983) (policy terms given plain, ordinary meaning)
Moldowan v. City of Warren, 578 F.3d 351 (6th Cir. 2009) (standard for evaluating evidence at summary judgment)

Outcome: Defendant Hortica's motion granted; plaintiff's motion denied — no UIM coverage under the policy for the Expedition.