Opinion ID: 746833
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Anyone else occupying a covered auto....

Text: 18 4. Anyone for damages he or she is entitled to recover because of bodily injury sustained by another insured. 19 As noted above, plaintiff is not listed as the named insured, and thus cannot recover under clause 1. Clause 2 is inapplicable because neither of the named insureds, Morrison and Target Rent-A-Car, is an individual. Nor can plaintiff claim inclusion in category 4 because no other insured is claimed to have suffered bodily injury. If plaintiff is to be covered under the terms of Morrison's business auto policy, therefore, she must show that she was occupying a covered auto at the time of the accident. 20 This she cannot do. The policy defines occupying as in, upon, getting in, on, out or off. Under the undisputed facts, plaintiff was not in, upon, getting in, out or off the rental car when the accident occurred--she was crossing the street to buy a cup of coffee. Indeed, she had left the vehicle some appreciable time before the accident occurred--enough time had elapsed for her to shop in an outlet store and purchase an item of clothing. Under such circumstances, plaintiff cannot successfully assert she was occupying the vehicle at the time of the accident. See, e.g., Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Powell, 757 F.Supp. 965, 971-72 (S.D.Ind.1991), aff'd, 953 F.2d 646 (7th Cir.1992). In sum, plaintiff cannot show that she meets any of the definitions of an insured under the UIM section of the policy. Hence, by its terms, the policy excludes plaintiff from UIM coverage. 21