Opinion ID: 719768
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: It was a GMC, a mini van.

Text: 31 Q. The van you were driving was not a full size commercial van? 32 A. It was a customized van. Mini van, that's what we call it. 33 Q. Was that your own personal vehicle? 34 A. It sure was. 35 Q. Was that van titled in your individual name? 36 A. Yes, sir. 37 Q. It was not titled in any business name? 38 A. No, sir. 39 Q. Okay. Was that van also your personal van that you would use for personal visits or personal business? 40 A. I don't understand what you're saying. 41 Q. Okay. Was that van, the white GMC mini van, was that your own personal van? 42 A. It was my van, yes, sir. 43 Q. Okay. So you would use that van just for your own personal use? 44 A. That's correct. 45 (Gonzales Dep. at 6-7). 46 It makes little sense to focus so intently on the precise calculation of expenses and require evidence of those expenses. But if we are to, then the charge must truly reflect the current price charged for gas, oil, maintenance, and insurance. Any paid arrangement for travel expenses is based upon the cost of the travel, whether car pool or commercial transportation. If Gonzales had taken the bus, his ticket price would be related to the cost of the commute; if he took a cab, the meter runs not only for each mile driven but also for all the time expended waiting during the conveyance. The risk incurred by Gonzales in travelling with his co-employees remains the same whether the calculations of gas and mileage are made to the penny or whether each passenger chips in five bucks for the ride to and from work; either way a group of co-employees are sharing part of the expenses and enjoying the convenience, fun, and camaraderie of travelling together to and from their place of employment. 47 Turning to Gonzales's fee, it is clear that his charge reflected a share of the expenses of the trip and certainly was not designed to cover all of his expenses, much less for profit. James Warot used to drive to the factory himself before joining Gonzales in his mini van. Warot was asked whether the five dollar cost was fair; he answered by comparing the expense it used to cost him to drive his own car to work: 48 Well, the gas alone would be similar to that, plus the wear and tear on my car and all the miles you put on a car. You wear a car out driving back and forth to Michigan City every day. Your car gets close to one hundred thousand miles, it's shot. Plus your oil--your oil changes, your brakes. Hey it was a great deal. Sorry it's over. 49 Rough estimates also demonstrate that Gonzales's charge of five dollars per person per day did not exceed his actual expenses. Carrying five passengers a day, Gonzales received $125 total per week from the passengers. He estimated that his weekly gas bill was at least forty dollars, leaving but $85 per week for vehicle depreciation and maintenance costs, such as tires and cleaning. Considering that Gonzales drove 400 miles a week (a 40-mile round trip, five days a week), $85 certainly cannot be considered to actually cover the expenses borne by Gonzales. 6 Thus, each passengers' payment of five dollars daily represents a roughly fair share of the expenses. Indeed, the passengers testified that five dollars was fair and a good deal, reflecting their own knowledge as commuters that the expenses were somewhat apportioned. Since Gonzales was planning to drive himself, it made sense for his co-employees to ride with him and contribute to a portion of his expenses. Indeed, it is interesting to note that the federal government, employers as well as local governmental units are encouraging employees to car pool in similar circumstances to reduce engine emissions and pollution, alleviate congested roadways, and save fuel and expenses for everyone. 50 Even accepting that Meridian represents Indiana law and requires evidence of expenses and some division of those expenses, Gonzales's situation is sufficiently distinct and removed from the factual circumstances in Meridian that we believe it proper to hold that Gonzales was involved in a share-the-expense car pool arrangement. First, Gonzales provided some evidence of his expense calculation, and both rough estimations and passenger testimony reflect that the five dollar charge at best only covered a portion of the expenses. By contrast in Meridian, the court stated that there was no evidence of expenses. Second, if Gonzales could not drive, his co-employees took the bus to work or drove themselves. In contrast, the insured in Meridian allowed others to drive her van, with the substitute driver receiving a twelve dollar reduction in his fee, increasing the risk of accident and reflecting a more formal commercial business arrangement. Third, Gonzales took four to six co-employees in his personal mini van whereas in Meridian, the insured took up to eleven riders in her van, increasing the probability that the arrangement was made for profit. Fourth, Gonzales had been driving himself and his co-employees to work for about 18 months, but the driver in Meridian had driven for a set fee for well over a decade. 659 N.E.2d at 211 n. 2. 51 Because it is, at least, ambiguous as to whether Gonzales's arrangement constituted a share-the-expense car pool, we follow the Indiana Supreme Court's instruction that ambiguities are to be resolved in favor of the insured. If the insurance company had wanted a narrow definition of car pool it could and would have delineated it clearly in the policy. See Heller v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 833 F.2d 1253, 1257 (7th Cir.1987) (refusing to enlarge the terms of coverage to require an insured to undergo carpal tunnel surgery as a condition to receiving disability payments). Thus, we are convinced that Gonzales's arrangement should be properly delineated to be nothing but a share-the-expense car pool type of arrangement: thus an exception to the policy exclusion against carrying persons for a fee. Gonzales is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.