The Estate of Robert Curtis, Sr., by its Personal Representative Theresa Brady v. Geico Geneeral Insurance Company
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 107
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Sept. 17, 2009 Matovich (insured by GEICO) sat in his parked truck after another driver, Curtis, bumped his truck and did not stop. Matovich followed, exited his truck, and confronted Curtis.
- A physical altercation occurred in the Meijer parking lot; Curtis chest-bumped Matovich multiple times, then collapsed and later died. Curtis’s Estate alleges death resulted from that altercation.
- Matovich and Curtis’s Estate entered an agreed judgment after mediation: Matovich admitted negligence, the Estate obtained a judgment for $357,868.45, and Matovich assigned to the Estate any claims he had against his automobile insurer (GEICO).
- GEICO defended under a reservation of rights, then filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that the Policy did not cover the altercation because Matovich was not "using" the insured vehicle when the injury occurred.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for GEICO, concluding Matovich lacked an "active relationship" to the vehicle at the time of the physical contact and thus the injury did not "arise out of" the vehicle’s ownership, maintenance, or use.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Estate/Curtis) | Defendant's Argument (GEICO/Matovich) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the altercation "arose out of" the use of the insured vehicle (coverage) | The altercation was connected to the vehicle because it began after the bump and while near the truck; thus the injury arose out of use of the vehicle | The physical fight occurred after both men exited vehicles and the truck played no active or integral role; the vehicle was at most tangentially related so no coverage | Held for GEICO: as a matter of law, Matovich was not "using" the vehicle and the injury did not arise out of ownership, maintenance, or use; no coverage |
| Whether the parties’ reasonable expectations include coverage for a near-vehicle altercation | Estate: reasonable expectations cover harms stemming from an incident that began with the vehicle bump | GEICO: reasonable expectations do not cover purely personal altercations that merely occur near a vehicle | Held for GEICO: reasonable expectations do not extend coverage to this physical altercation |
| Effect of agreed judgment and assignment on insurer liability | Estate: the agreed judgment/assignment entitles the Estate to pursue GEICO for the judgment amount | GEICO: insurer’s duty depends on whether the Policy covers the loss; assignment does not create coverage where none exists | Held for GEICO: assignment does not obligate insurer where policy excludes the incident; coverage lacking resolves supplemental proceeding |
| Whether Argonaut v. Jones compels coverage here | Estate: Argonaut supports finding an "active relationship" even if claimant was outside vehicle | GEICO: Argonaut is distinguishable because the vehicle in Argonaut played an integral, active role at the scene (traffic control) | Held for GEICO: Argonaut is distinguishable; no active relationship here so Argonaut does not compel coverage |
Key Cases Cited
- Sheehan Constr. Co. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 935 N.E.2d 160 (Ind. 2010) (insurance-policy language construed using ordinary meaning; unambiguous terms enforced)
- Ind. Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co. v. Statesmen Ins. Co., 291 N.E.2d 897 (Ind. 1973) ("ownership, maintenance, and use" means caused by use; use must be efficient and predominating cause)
- Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Jones, 953 N.E.2d 608 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (whether claimant had an "active" relationship to vehicle and parties’ reasonable expectations are crucial to coverage analysis)
- Moons v. Keith, 758 N.E.2d 960 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (coverage does not extend to results that are distinctly remote or only tangentially related to vehicle use)