Wicker v. McIntosh
938 N.E.2d 25
Ind. Ct. App.2010Background
- Wicker, a plaintiff in a negligence action, was injured in 2003 while a passenger in a golf cart owned/operated by Rodney McIntosh; the accident occurred off Ronald McIntosh's property.
- Ronald McIntosh was insured under a Farm Bureau homeowners policy through Ronald; Farm Bureau intervened in Wicker's action seeking declaratory relief about coverage.
- Farm Bureau moved for summary judgment arguing the policy excludes coverage for bodily injury arising from ownership/use of motorized conveyances off an insured location, including the golf cart.
- Wicker argued the policy's language requires only that the golf cart be kept at an insured location, not that the accident occur there, and that an exception for recreational use might apply.
- The trial court granted Farm Bureau summary judgment, and the trial court’s order was certified for interlocutory appeal; on appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Farm Bureau's exclusion bars coverage for the golf cart accident off an insured location. | Wicker argues coverage exists because the golf cart was kept at an insured location, and the accident need not occur there. | Farm Bureau contends the exclusion applies regardless of where the cart is kept; the accident occurred off an insured location, so coverage does not apply. | Summary judgment affirmed; exclusion unambiguous and excludes coverage. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of South Bend v. Century Indem. Co., 821 N.E.2d 5 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (direct action rule and its limits in insurance coverage disputes)
- Community Action of Greater Indianapolis, Inc. v. Indiana Farmers Mutual Insurance Co., 708 N.E.2d 882 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (exception to direct action where insurer denial/coverage issue is involved)
- I/N Tek v. Hitachi Ltd., 734 N.E.2d 584 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (summary judgment standard; shifting burden)
- Hartford Cas. Ins. v. Evansville Vanderburgh Pub. Library, 860 N.E.2d 636 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (insurance contract interpretation—ambiguous vs. unambiguous language)
- Niccum v. Niccum, 734 N.E.2d 637 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (contract terms not ambiguous merely due to dispute over interpretation)