Ass'n v. Minnesota Pub. Because Elizabeth Kight's name appeared on the Tercel title, she was its prima facie owner. Elizabeth Kight took physical delivery of the vehicle, chose it herself, furnished the down payment, arranged financing and made monthly payments, is listed on the purchase invoice, obtained coverage by calling her insurance agent, paid for the coverage by reimbursing her father, provided all repair and upkeep, and had full control over the use of the vehicle. Appellant argues that Calvin Kight was the co-owner because he was the named insured on the policy. However, being the named insured has been held insufficient to establish prima facie ownership even when the named insured is also the owner listed on the title.
Courts look at all relevant circumstances in establishing ownership of a vehicle.
See, e.g., Preferred Risk Mut. Elizabeth Kight chose, purchased, and paid for her car independently, had title to it, had it in her possession, was its exclusive user, arranged and paid for its insurance, and had full control over it. Both Preferred Risk Mutual and Quaderer indicate she was the sole owner. We are not persuaded by appellant's argument that Calvin Kight is estopped from asserting that he is not the owner of the vehicle because he allegedly asserted that he was the owner by procuring insurance. Moreover, estoppel requires reliance on the part of the party seeking to enforce the estoppel.