Opinion ID: 175484
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Garage Policy

Text: The garage policy covers: Section II  Liability Coverage A. Coverage 1. Garage Operations  Other than Covered Autos a. We will pay all sums an insured legally must pay as damages because of bodily injury or property damage to which this insurance applies caused by an accident and resulting from garage operations other than the ownership, maintenance or use of coverage autos. The policy excludes coverage for: 1. Expected or Intended Injury Bodily Injury or property damage expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured. But for garage operations other than covered autos this exclusion does not apply to bodily injury resulting from the use of reasonable force to protect persons or property. . . . 6. Care, Custody or Control Property damage to or covered pollution cost or expense involving: d. Property in the insured's care, custody or control. . . . 14. Loss of Use Loss of other property not physically damaged if caused by: a. A delay or failure by you or anyone acting on your behalf to perform a contract or agreement in accordance with its terms. The policy defines garage operations as the ownership, maintenance or use of locations for garage business and that portion of the roads or other accesses that adjoin these locations. Garage operations includes the ownership, maintenance or use of the autos indicated in Section I of this Coverage Form as covered autos. Garage operations also includes all operations necessary or incidental to a garage business. An insurance policy is interpreted according to the plain, ordinary, and popular meaning of the language. McGrew v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. of Ark., Inc., 371 Ark. 567, 268 S.W.3d 890, 895-96 (2007). The loss which Landers argues is covered under the garage policy is Clark's alleged loss of use of her car after it was repossessed. She did not make any claim for physical damage to her car. The incident is not covered under the garage policy because the loss arises from the allegedly improper repossession, which is not an activity associated with operation of a garage but of the financing activities of the dealership. The claims also fall under the exclusion for expected or intended loss, since Landers certainly expected or intended that Clark would lose the use of her automobile when it was repossessed. Coverage is further excluded under the provision regarding loss of use for failure to perform a contract or other agreement in accordance with its terms. The damages in the Clark complaint arise from alleged breaches of the financing agreement between Landers, TMC, and Clark. The district court properly determined Continental had no duty to defend the claims under the Garage policy.