Ladd Warner, A Minor, By His Next Friend and Natural Parent, Richard Warner, and Richard Warner, Individually, and David Helms v. United Farm Family Mutual Insurance Company (mem. dec.), 23A04-1607-CC-1495

Background

On December 22–23, 2010, David Helms purchased a Polaris Ranger ATV; it was driven recreationally on the Helms property and local roads the day after delivery, when a teenage cousin, Ladd Warner, was injured after the ATV tipped over.
Ladd (by his next friend/father Richard Warner) and Richard Warner sued the Helmses for negligence, negligent entrustment, and negligent supervision arising from the ATV accident.
The Helmses held a homeowner’s policy with United Farm; United Farm sued for a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify under the policy’s Coverage E (personal liability) and Coverage F (medical payments) because of an exclusion for injuries arising out of motorized land conveyances.
The policy’s exclusion for motorized conveyances contains several exceptions, including Exception (2)(a) (coverage preserved for recreational off-road conveyances not owned by an “insured”) and Exception (4)(a) (coverage preserved for non-registered conveyances used to service an insured’s residence).
The trial court granted United Farm summary judgment; the Warners appealed, arguing Exception (2)(a) and Exception (4)(a) applied to provide coverage.
The court of appeals affirmed, holding: (1) “an insured” in Exception (2)(a) unambiguously means any insured, so coverage is excluded because David (an insured) owned the ATV; and (2) there was no evidence the ATV was used to service the residence at the time of the accident, so Exception (4)(a) did not apply.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether United Farm must defend/indemnify under Coverage E/F despite exclusion for motorized land conveyances	Warner: Exception (2)(a) applies because the ATV was not owned by all insureds (it was owned only by David), so the exclusion should not bar coverage	United Farm: Exclusion applies because David was an insured who owned the ATV; thus Exception (2)(a) does not apply	Held for United Farm: exclusion applies; no duty to defend/indemnify
Whether Exception (2)(a) (“not owned by an ‘insured’”) is ambiguous or should be read as ‘any insured’	Warner: “an insured” should not be read to mean any insured; United Farm should have drafted differently if it meant that	United Farm: plain meaning of “an insured” covers any insured; other jurisdictions so interpret similar language	Held: “an insured” unambiguously means any insured; exception fails because David (an insured) owned the ATV
Whether Exception (4)(a) (vehicle used to service the residence) applies	Warner: David purchased the ATV to help with chores/yard work, so it was intended to service the residence	United Farm: At time of the accident ATV was used only recreationally off-premises; no evidence it was servicing the residence when the accident occurred	Held: Use is determined at time of accident; no evidence of servicing use — exception does not apply
Whether genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment	Warner: Intent to use for chores creates factual dispute about Exception (4)(a)	United Farm: Designated evidence shows only recreational use before the accident, so no factual dispute on servicing use	Held: No genuine issue as to material fact; summary judgment for United Farm affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Williams v. Tharp, 914 N.E.2d 756 (Ind. 2009) (summary judgment standard)
Holiday Hosp. Franchising, Inc. v. AMCO Ins. Co., 983 N.E.2d 574 (Ind. 2013) (contract/insurance policy interpretation rules)
Justice v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 4 N.E.3d 1171 (Ind. 2014) (policy ambiguity principles)
Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ginther, 803 N.E.2d 224 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (assessing use/intent at time of accident)
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Smiley, 659 N.E.2d 1345 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995) (interpreting “an insured” in exclusion to mean any insured)