967 N.E.2d 1085
Ind. Ct. App.2012Background
- Gasser was injured while riding as a passenger in Kamman's car to a golf course.
- Gasser's employer, Huntingburg Machine Works, insured the vehicles; Auto-Owners issued the policy for substitute vehicles.
- Kamman's car was being used to transport Gasser after his Toyota truck's battery failed and with no other usable vehicle available.
- The policy defines a substitute auto as one you do not own used temporarily as a substitute for your own vehicle out of use for breakdown or repair.
- Gasser sued for underinsured motorist coverage; the trial court granted Auto-Owners summary judgment, denying coverage to Gasser.
- The court applied Deadwiler and Tanner to decide whether Kamman’s drive constituted a temporary substitute or a personal favor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kamman’s car was a temporary substitute for Gasser’s vehicle | Gasser: Kamman’s car served as a substitute within policy terms. | Auto-Owners: Kamman’s use was not a substitute, but a friendly accommodation. | Kamman's use did not satisfy temporary-substitute criteria |
| Whether the policy provides coverage when the substitute vehicle is used as a favor rather than to fulfill a prior obligation | Gasser entitled to coverage as substitute for disabled vehicle. | No coverage because absence of prior obligation or designation. | No coverage; use was a mere favor, not a prior obligation |
| What standard governs review of a summary judgment motion in insurance-coverage disputes | Gasser contends there are facts creating ambiguity for trial. | Auto-Owners argues no genuine issue of material fact exists. | CourtAffirms grant of summary judgment for Auto-Owners |
Key Cases Cited
- Deadwiler v. Chicago Motor Club Ins. Co., 603 N.E.2d 1365 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (temporary-substitute requires a prior obligation or designation by insured)
- Tanner v. Pennsylvania Threshermen & F.M.C. Ins. Co., 226 F.2d 498 (6th Cir. 1955) (substitute must be under insured's control to fulfill a prior obligation)
- Roberts v. Gonzalez, 495 F. Supp. 1310 (D. V.I. 1980) (distinguishes prior undertaking as basis for temporary-substitute status)
- Fulton v. Woodford, 498 P.2d 564 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1972) (distinguishes accommodation versus prior obligation for substitute coverage)
- Babineaux v. Lavergne, 321 So.2d 401 (La. Ct. App. 1975) (favor vs. obligation in substitute-vehicle analysis)
- Carnes v. Schram, 440 N.W.2d 451 (Neb. 1989) (courtesy accommodation not a contractual substitute)