No Auto Liability Coverage for Accident Caused by Named Insured's Grandson
In Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wroblewski, 2009 WL 69343 (Ind. App), Aaron Litherland, a minor, lived with his grandparents and legal guardians, Bertha and Robert Shemberger. On his sixteenth birthday the Shembergers gave him a car, which was titled and registered in Aaron's name.
When Aaron obtained his driver's license, Bertha signed a financial responsibility form pursuant to Indiana Code section 9-24-9-3. That statute required a minor's application for a driver's license to be signed and sworn to by a parent, guardian, or other adult willing to assume certain statutory obligations. One of these statutory obligations (Indiana Code section 9-24-9-4(a)) specified that “[a]n individual who signed an application for a permit or license under this chapter agrees to be responsible jointly and severally with the minor applicant for any injury or damage that the minor applicant causes by reason of the operation of a motor vehicle if the minor applicant is liable in damages.”
Soon after, Aaron was involved in a vehicle collision in which Alexis Wroblewski, a passenger in his vehicle, sustained various injuries. The Wroblewskis filed a complaint against Aaron alleging Alexis' injuries were caused by Aaron's negligence. Because Aaron was a minor at the time, the Wroblewskis named Bertha Shemberger as a defendant bearing financial responsibility for Aaron's acts.
The trial court determined Aaron to be one hundred percent at fault for the accident and therefore liable for Alexis' injuries and damages. The court also found that “[Bertha] had executed a financial responsibility form by which she agreed to bear responsibility for any injuries or damages which other persons sustained by reason of [Aaron's] operation of a motor vehicle for which he was found liable.” Therefore, the trial court entered judgment against Bertha in the amount of $99,422.19, plus court costs
The Wroblewskis instituted proceedings against Motorists Mutual, alleging that Motorists Mutual's policy provided coverage to Bertha for the judgment entered against her. Motorists Mutual filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that no liability coverage existed under its policy. The Wroblewskis then filed their own motion for summary judgment. The trial found in favor of the Wroblewskis and denied Motorists Mutual's motion. Motorists Mutual appealed.
The Court of Appeals of Indiana reversed. It held that there was no coverage because the policy at issue clearly provided that there was no “Liability Coverage for the ownership, maintenance or use of: . . . B (3) any vehicle, other than your covered auto, which is: owned by any family member.” In the instant case, Aaron, who was Bertha's family member, owned the vehicle involved in the accident and the car was not a covered auto under the policy at issue.
According to the court, Bertha may have been liable because of Indiana Code, but her insurer's policy language determined whether the liability was covered by Motorists Mutual. Thus, the exclusion applied to preclude coverage.