Stonehocker v. Gulf Insurance, 368 P.3d 1187

Marilyn “Mitzi” Stonehocker, a camp cook for Bear Creek Outfitters, used her personal 1995 Dodge pickup and a gooseneck trailer (mobile kitchen + guests' luggage) to support a multi-day cattle drive when the ranch’s 1996 GMC Suburban (the normally used vehicle) was out for repairs.
During the drive her pickup and trailer were stolen; Stonehocker suffered a serious head injury and sought uninsured motorist (UM) benefits.
Stonehocker’s personal insurer (State Farm) paid UM benefits. She then sought UM coverage under Bear Creek’s commercial auto policy issued by Travelers/Gulf; Travelers denied coverage.
Stonehocker sued; both parties moved for summary judgment. The District Court awarded Travelers summary judgment on two grounds: (1) Stonehocker was not a named insured under the policy; (2) her pickup was not a “temporary substitute” for the covered Suburban.
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the District Court on issue (1) (policy’s “you” referred to the corporate insured, Bear Creek Outfitters, Inc.), but reversed on issue (2), holding the proper test for a temporary substitute auto is whether the vehicle was put to the same use the covered vehicle would have been put to if withdrawn from service.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Stonehocker is a named insured under the policy’s UM provision	Stonehocker argued the policy’s “you” (and the named insured listed as a guest ranch) should be read to include employees of the guest ranch	Travelers argued the named insured is the corporate entity (Bear Creek Outfitters, Inc.), not individual employees	Court held Travelers: the policy’s “you” refers to the corporate named insured; Stonehocker is not a named insured
Whether Stonehocker’s pickup was a “temporary substitute” for the covered Suburban	Stonehocker argued her pickup performed the same function (transporting guests’ luggage) the Suburban would have performed but for its being out of service, so it was a temporary substitute	Travelers argued claimant must show she personally would have been using the Suburban (not someone else) when the accident occurred; because she wouldn’t have, her pickup is not a substitute	Court held Stonehocker: test is functional — whether the vehicle was used in place of the covered auto’s normal use; her undisputed testimony established a temporary substitute and she is entitled to judgment on that coverage issue

McClue v. Safeco Ins. Co., 354 P.3d 604 (Mont. 2015) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Am. States Ins. Co. v. Flathead Janitorial & Rug Servs., 355 P.3d 735 (Mont. 2015) (reasonable expectations doctrine for policy interpretation)
Lee v. Great Divide Ins. Co., 182 P.3d 41 (Mont. 2008) (insurer may limit coverage to a corporate named insured)
Lierboe v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 73 P.3d 800 (Mont. 2003) (no expansion of corporate policy coverage to non-occupying corporate persons)
Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Owen, 519 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2008) (discussed temporary substitute auto rule; insufficient proof a covered vehicle was being replaced)