Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Ins. Co. v. Basham
Decision Date | 16 October 2018 |
Docket Number | Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-PL-446 |
Citation | 113 N.E.3d 630 |
Parties | BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant-Defendant, v. Christina BASHAM d/b/a Basham Family, L.P., Appellee-Plaintiff, Voldico, LLC, Andrew Vollmer, Standard Agencies, Inc., and Carol J. Jenkinson, Defendants. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Attorney for Appellant: Stephen C. Wheeler, Smith Fisher Maas Howard & Lloyd, P.C., Indianapolis, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee: Thomas M. Beeman, Beeman Law, Anderson, Indiana
[1] Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Insurance Company ("Berkshire Hathaway") appeals the trial court's denial of its motion for partial summary judgment and grant of summary judgment for Christina Basham d/b/a Basham Family, L.P. ("Basham") on Basham's complaint, which alleged that Berkshire Hathaway had wrongfully denied insurance coverage on a detached garage.1 Berkshire Hathaway raises one issue for our review, namely, whether the trial court erred when it denied its motion for summary judgment and entered summary judgment for Basham.2
[2] We affirm.
[3] Basham owns fifteen rental properties. Basham obtained an insurance policy from Berkshire Hathaway to cover the rental properties, which was effective from November 17, 2016, until November 17, 2017. The insurance policy provided, in relevant part, as follows:
Appellant's App. Vol. II at 24 (bold removed). The insurance policy also contained a section entitled "Property Not Covered," which described various items or categories of items that were not covered by the insurance policy.
[4] Berkshire Hathaway issued one insurance policy to cover all fifteen properties. In addition, Berkshire Hathaway issued declarations for each individual property. One of the covered properties is located in Elwood. The declarations for that property provided a description of the premises and the coverage provided. Under the "Description of Premises," the declarations identified the premises as "Premises Number: 15[,] Building Number: 1[.]" Id. at 23. The declarations also included an address of 800 N. 13th St., Elwood, IN 46036, and it listed the occupancy as "RENTAL DWELLINGS–OTHER THAN STUDENT HOUSING." Id.
[5] The premises in Elwood included a house and a detached garage. On December 30, 2016, a fire burned down the garage and greatly damaged the house. Basham filed a claim with Berkshire Hathaway for the damages. Berkshire Hathaway paid for the damage to the house, but it denied Basham's claim for damage to the detached garage. In particular, Berkshire Hathaway stated that Id. at 157.
[6] On April 25, 2017, Basham filed a complaint against Berkshire Hathaway in which she alleged that Berkshire Hathaway had wrongfully denied insurance coverage on the detached garage. Thereafter, on July 17, Basham filed a motion for partial summary judgment.3 In that motion, Basham alleged that the insurance policy was unambiguous and covered the garage. In the alternative, Basham contended that, even if the policy was ambiguous, the ambiguous policy should be construed in her favor to cover the garage.
[7] In response, Berkshire Hathaway asserted that the detached garage was not covered under the policy because the garage was not a completed addition. Further, Berkshire Hathaway filed a counter motion for summary judgment in which it contended that the policy was unambiguous and did not cover the detached garage. In support of their respective motions for summary judgment, both parties designated the insurance policy and declarations as evidence. After a hearing on the cross motions for summary judgment, the trial court concluded that the insurance policy was ambiguous and interpreted the policy in Basham's favor. Accordingly, the court determined that the detached garage was covered by the policy, entered summary judgment for Basham, and denied Berkshire Hathaway's motion for summary judgment. This interlocutory appeal ensued.
Hughley v. State , 15 N.E.3d 1000, 1003 (Ind. 2014) ( ). " ‘The fact that the parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment does not alter our standard of review, as we consider each motion separately to determine whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ " SCI Propane, LLC v. Frederick , 39 N.E.3d 675, 677 (Ind. 2015) (quoting Reed v. Reid , 980 N.E.2d 277, 285 (Ind. 2012) ).
[9] Here, the trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions thereon in its summary judgment order. While such findings and conclusions are not required in a summary judgment and do not alter our standard of review, they are helpful on appeal for us to understand the reasoning of the trial court. See Knighten v. E. Chicago Hous. Auth. , 45 N.E.3d 788, 791 (Ind. 2015).
[10] Both parties agree that coverage under the insurance policy is limited to Covered Property. But, on appeal, the parties dispute whether the detached garage was "Covered Property" under the terms of the policy. "The interpretation of an insurance policy is primarily a question of law for the court, and it is therefore a question which is particularly suited for summary judgment." Wagner v. Yates , 912 N.E.2d 805, 808 (Ind. 2009).
Am. Access Cas. Co. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. , 103 N.E.3d 644, 649 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (internal citations omitted).
[12] " " Thomson Inc. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am. , 11 N.E.3d 982, 993 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (quoting Gasser v. Downing , 967 N.E.2d 1085, 1087 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) ). " ‘However, an ambiguity does not exist merely because the parties proffer differing interpretations of the policy language.’ " Id. (quoting Buckeye State Mut. Ins. Co. v. Carfield , 914 N.E.2d 315, 318 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) ).
[13] The insurance policy provided that Berkshire Hathaway "will pay for direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property at the premises described in the Declarations caused by or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss." Appellant's App. Vol. II at 24. The policy further defined Covered Property, in relevant part, as the "Building, meaning the building or structure described in the Declarations" plus any "completed additions[.]" Id. (bold removed). Thus, we must determine whether the detached garage is covered under the policy as the "Building" or as a "completed addition." We first address whether the detached garage is covered as the "Building."
[14] The insurance policy explicitly defines the Building as "the building or structure described in the Declarations." Id. And the declarations for the property at issue describe the premises as "Premises Number: 15[,] Building Number: 1[.]" Id. at 23. It further describes the occupancy as "RENTAL DWELLINGS–OTHER THAN STUDENT HOUSING[.]" Id.4 Based on the policy's use of "the building or structure" in the singular, the declarations...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ind. GRQ v. Am. Guarantee & Liab. Ins. Co.
... ... in the insurance contract,” Berkshire Hathaway ... Homestate Ins. Co. v. Basham , 113 N.E.3d 630, 634 ... ...
-
Frankenmuth Mut. Ins. Co. v. FunF/X II, Inc.
...in the policy merely because the parties offer different interpretations of its language. See id. ; Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Ins. Co. v. Basham , 113 N.E.3d 630, 634 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). An ambiguity exists only when the policy's provision proves "susceptible to more than one reasonabl......
-
Napier v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co.
...independently to determine whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Ins. Co. v. Basham , 113 N.E.3d 630, 633 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied. A grant of summary judgment will be affirmed if it is sustainable upon any theory suppor......
-
Ind. GRQ v. Am. Guarantee & Liab. Ins. Co.
... ... manifested in the insurance contract,” Berkshire ... Hathaway Homestate Ins. Co. v. Basham, 113 N.E.3d 630, ... ...