insurance portion of a homeowners’ insurance policy issued to Gearheart’s parent
ID: 445047 • Letter: I
Question
insurance portion of a homeowners’ insurance policy issued to Gearheart’s parents, Auto-Owners would be obligated to pay any judgment entered against Gearheart (who still lived in his parents’ home and was therefore an insured person under the policy). The insurance policy at issue stated that Auto-Owners “will pay all sums any insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of or arising out of bodily injury or property damage caused by an occurrence to which this coverage applies.” The policy also defined “occurrence” to mean “an accident that results in bodily injury or property damage and includes, as one occurrence, all continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same generally harmful conditions.” The word “accident” was not defined in the policy. In addition, an exclusion set forth in the policy indicated that there was no coverage for “bodily injury or property damage reasonably expected or intended by the insured.”
Auto-Owners moved for summary judgment, asserting that in view of the facts and the above-quoted provisions, the policy furnished no coverage in regard to Gearheart’s actions. The trial court denied Auto-Owners’ motion, but the Court of Appeals of Indiana reversed. Harvey and Johnson appealed to the Supreme Court of Indiana.
Should the appellate Court’s decision be reversed?
Explanation / Answer
insurance portion of a homeowners’ insurance policy issued to Gearheart’s parents, Auto-Owners would be obligated to pay any judgment entered against Gearheart (who still lived in his parents’ home and was therefore an insured person under the policy). The insurance policy at issue stated that Auto-Owners “will pay all sums any insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of or arising out of bodily injury or property damage caused by an occurrence to which this coverage applies.” The policy also defined “occurrence” to mean “an accident that results in bodily injury or property damage and includes, as one occurrence, all continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same generally harmful conditions.” The word “accident” was not defined in the policy. In addition, an exclusion set forth in the policy indicated that there was no coverage for “bodily injury or property damage reasonably expected or intended by the insured.”
Auto-Owners moved for summary judgment, asserting that in view of the facts and the above-quoted provisions, the policy furnished no coverage in regard to Gearheart’s actions. The trial court denied Auto-Owners’ motion, but the Court of Appeals of Indiana reversed. Harvey and Johnson appealed to the Supreme Court of Indiana.
Should the appellate Court’s decision be reversed?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given Information :
In this case there are two parties .
1) Auto Owners
2) Gearheart’s parents
Its common rules & regulations everywhere that the particular automobile which is insured , that insurance coverage accidents & damages .This is clearly mentioned in every insured policy.
Now in above case when the insurance made between Auto Owners & Gearheart’s parents, it was a clear responsibility of Auto Owners to check all the details mentioned in policy.
Following points have been clearly mentioned :
Trail court denied the auto owners motion.
Harvey and Johnson appealed to the Supreme Court of Indiana.But again here the result is from the side of Gearheart’s parents .because of the statement mentioned in policy they are not liable for insurance which is coming under accident or body damage.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.