Court Opinion

ID: 9519088
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:08:37.119348+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:41:30.917446
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge,
concurring.
Unlike the policy in Indiana Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co. v. Statesman Ins. Co. (1973) 260 Ind. 32, 291 N.E.2d 897, the policy here does not cover “maintenance or use”. The policy here refers only to use. Under a policy like that in Lumbermens, Shaw’s work on Bose’s vehicle would have been within the “maintenance” coverage, without regard to whether such was a “use” of the vehicle. Another aspect of the policy involved in Lumbermens is not brought into play here. The Lumbermens policy had an expansive version of the term “use” in that it included “loading or unloading” of the vehicle.3 I have serious doubts that without the express inclusion of “loading or unloading” in a policy, such activity might fairly be said to constitute a “use” of the vehicle contemplated by the insurance coverage. See American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Nat’l Ins. Ass’n (1991) Ind.App., 577 N.E.2d 969. In American Family, “use” of the vehicle as contemplated within an automobile business exclusion provision, was held to be restricted to “risks occurring while a vehicle is being driven or used as a means of transportation.” 577 N.E.2d at 972. These doubts add to my agreement that the repair inspection being conducted here was not a “use” of the vehicle.

. The claim involved in Lumbermens did not arise out of loading or unloading or other "use'’ of the vehicle. The water softener being delivered to the premises had already been unloaded from the vehicle. The injury was sustained while the softener was being carried down the basement stairs, which collapsed.