Aetna Ins. Co. of Midwest v. Monteith Tire Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 11 January 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 3-1281A324,3-1281A324 |
| Citation | 443 N.E.2d 880 |
| Parties | AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY OF the MIDWEST, Appellant (Plaintiff Below), v. MONTEITH TIRE COMPANY, INC., and Midland Insurance Company, Appellees (Defendants Below). |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Gary P. Price, Charles T. Jennings, Dutton, Kappes & Overman, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Thomas R. Lemon, Michael E. Armey, Rasor, Harris, Lemon & Reed, Warsaw, for appellee Monteith Tire Co., Inc.
Roland Obenchain, Thomas F. Lewis, Jr., Jones, Obenchain, Johnson, Ford, Pankow & Lewis, South Bend, for appellee Midland Ins. Co.
W. Robert Tucker was injured when a recapped tire mounted by Monteith Tire Company, Inc., on a truck owned by Maple Leaf Farms, exploded or separated, causing a part of the rim assembly to strike Tucker, an employee of Maple Leaf Farms. Thereafter, W. Robert Tucker and Carole J. Tucker filed an action for personal injuries against Monteith and two other corporate defendants alleging negligence and strict liability.
At the time of the accident, Monteith was insured by two insurance companies, Aetna Insurance Company and Midland Insurance Company. Monteith made a demand for defense and indemnification under both insurance policies. Both insurance companies undertook a defense of Monteith under a full reservation of rights.
Subsequently, Aetna filed suit for declaratory relief requesting the trial court to declare the rights and obligations as between Aetna and Monteith pursuant to the claim made by Monteith for defense and indemnification of the Tucker complaint. Aetna based its denial of Monteith's claim on the following exclusion contained in Monteith's insurance policy with Aetna:
"PRODUCTS LIMITATION ENDORSEMENT
In consideration of a premium reduction, it is agreed that such insurance as is afforded by the Bodily Injury Liability Coverage and Property Damage Liability Coverage does not apply to Bodily Injury or Property Damage included within the completed operations hazard or products hazard for any tire retreading, recapping operations or the sales or service of same.
ACCEPTED /s/ Ray W. Monteith"
Aetna filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, or in the Alternative, Summary Judgment. Monteith responded with a Motion for Summary Judgment. The trial court entered summary judgment against Aetna and in favor of Monteith on its cross-motion for summary judgment.
Aetna now seeks appellate review of the trial court's decision, contending the Products Limitation Endorsement contained in the insurance policy exempts Aetna from defense and indemnification of Monteith with respect to the Tucker claim.
Summary judgment is not a procedure for trying facts and determining the preponderance of the evidence, but rather it is a procedure for applying the law to the facts when no factual controversy exists. Central Realty, Inc. v. Hillman's Equip., Inc. (1969), 253 Ind. 48, 246 N.E.2d 383. The standard...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shortridge v. Platis
...Ind.App., 433 N.E.2d 39, at 42; Enderle v. Sharman, (1981) Ind.App., 422 N.E.2d 686. As stated in Aetna Ins. Co., etc. v. Monteith Tire Co., (1983) Ind.App., 443 N.E.2d 880, at 881: "Summary judgment is not a procedure for trying facts and determining the preponderance of the evidence, but ......
-
McBride v. Cox, 82A01-9010-CV-391
...cases, the standard of review applied by the Court of Appeals is the same as that of the trial court. Aetna Ins. Co. of Midwest v. Monteith Tire Co., Inc. (1983), Ind.App., 443 N.E.2d 880. Summary judgment is proper only where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving......
-
Zehner v. MFA Ins. Co., 1-1182A333
...as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Aetna Insurance Company of the Midwest v. Monteith Tire Company, Inc., (1983) Ind.App., 443 N.E.2d 880. While Zehner concedes that she failed to bring an action on the insurance contract within one ye......
-
B & R Farm Services, Inc. v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 1085S408
...to a customer are apt. See Indiana Insurance Company v. DeZutti (1980), Ind., 408 N.E.2d 1275, and Aetna Insurance Company v. Monteith Tire Company, Inc. (1983), Ind.App., 443 N.E.2d 880. The product hazard exclusion here exempts damages which have occurred "after physical possession of suc......