Quiring v. Geico General Insurance Co.
953 N.E.2d 119
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- Quiring, Oklahoma-born, was injured in an Oklahoma collision with Capehart; GEICO sought UIM benefits under Johnston’s GEICO policy; Johnston is Quiring’s Indiana-residing mother; GEICO filed a declaratory judgment in Indiana to determine coverage and governing law; Oklahoma suit already filed addressing related issues; Indiana court denied Quiring’s motions to dismiss/stay and for continuance; court granted GEICO summary judgment finding Quiring not a resident of Johnston’s Indiana household; issues centered on residency, choice of law, and comity
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Indiana action should have been dismissed or stayed | Quiring argues Oklahoma suit controls; comity/efficiency | GEICO argues Indiana forum better for policy interpretation | No abuse; declaratory relief appropriate and controls controversy |
| Whether continuance for discovery was required | Discovery needed on policy conversion (Oklahoma to Indiana) | Motion timely or moot; discovery may be unnecessary | Not decided; moot given residency ruling |
| Whether Quiring was a resident of Johnston’s Indiana household as of the accident | Residency facts disputed; could be resident | Undisputed facts show no residency | Quiring not a resident as a matter of law |
| Whether Johnston’s policy is Indiana or Oklahoma policy affects governing law | Policy status could change applicable law | Residency dispositive; issue immaterial | Immaterial; dismissal on residency applies regardless of policy status |
Key Cases Cited
- Volkswagenwerk, A.G. v. Watson, 181 Ind.App. 155, 390 N.E.2d 1082 (1979) (declaratory relief serves to settle, not to shift tribunals)
- KLLM, Inc. v. Legg, 826 N.E.2d 136 (Ind.Ct.App. 2005) (abuse of discretion standard in declaratory relief/compel stay)
- Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc. v. Merchants Inv. Counseling, Inc., 451 N.E.2d 346 (Ind.Ct.App. 1983) (abuse of discretion in staying declaratory actions)
- Am. Economy Ins. Co. v. Felts, 759 N.E.2d 649 (Ind.Ct.App. 2001) (comity considerations in interstate declaratory actions)
- National & Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sparks, 647 N.E.2d 375 (Ind.Ct.App. 1995) (appropriate method to litigate coverage via declaratory judgment)
- Cromer v. Sefton, 471 N.E.2d 700 (Ind.Ct.App. 1984) (keep insurance issues out of personal injury suits; use declaratory action)
- Fowler v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. of Ind., 137 Ind.App. 375, 209 N.E.2d 262 (1965) (insurer may seek declaratory judgment to determine coverage)
- Crafton v. 551 N.E.2d 893, 551 N.E.2d 893 (Ind.Ct.App. 1990) (residence factors in policy coverage considerations)