Omni Insurance Group v. Poage
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 192
Ind. Ct. App.2012Background
- Cody Bauer, a seventeen-year-old, drove Treva Bauer's car (insured by Omni) in a collision with Lake Poage's motorcycle on April 16, 2008.
- Treva's Omni policy covers Treva, family members who use the car, and permissive users, but excludes liability for a resident of Treva's household not listed on the Declarations (Exclusion 15).
- Cody was not listed on Treva's Declarations page and was spending time at Treva's residence; he had a room at Treva's and his father’s homes and relied on both as his home.
- Treva and Cody's father had joint/legal custody arrangements; Cody divided time between Treva's and his father's households and used his father's address for some official purposes.
- Omni paid Treva's property-damage claim but later questioned Cody's residence; both Omni and Poages moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted summary judgment to the Poages and denied Omni.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cody was a resident of Treva's household | Omni contends Cody was a resident triggering Exclusion 15. | Poages contend Cody was not a resident of Treva's household. | Genuine issue of material fact; summary judgment improper; remand. |
| Whether Omni waived misrepresentation/coverage defenses | Omni did not waive its policy defenses; prior actions do not amount to waiver. | Poages argue Omni's conduct amounted to waiver. | No waiver found; issues to be decided on merits on remand. |
| Materiality of Treva's misrepresentation on the application | Treva allegedly misrepresented residents of the household, which could affect coverage. | Materiality should be determined; misrepresentation may render coverage voidable only if material. | Materiality is a fact question to be resolved on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Indiana Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Imel, 817 N.E.2d 299 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (three-factor residency test for determining 'resident' in exclusions.)
- Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Guzorek, 690 N.E.2d 664 (Ind. 1997) (material misrepresentation standard; materiality depends on insurer's knowledge.)
- Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Good, 938 N.E.2d 227 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (material misrepresentation or omission renders coverage voidable.)
- United Farm Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Michalski, 814 N.E.2d 1060 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (appellate view on waiver and merits when arguments are raised.)
- Loomis v. Ameritech Corp., 764 N.E.2d 658 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (appellate briefing requirements and argument framing.)
- Wells v. Stone City Bank, 691 N.E.2d 1246 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (pleading and misrepresentation standards context.)
- Indiana Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Imel, 817 N.E.2d 299 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (three-factor residency framework for exclusion cases.)