IN THE
Court of Appeals of Indiana First Chicago Insurance Company, FILED Appellant-Defendant Jun 04 2024, 9:50 am
CLERK Indiana Supreme Court v. Court of Appeals and Tax Court
Ron Jones, Appellee-Plaintiff
June 4, 2024 Court of Appeals Case No. 23A-CC-2891 Appeal from the Marion Superior Court The Honorable Ian L. Stewart, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 49D05-2107-CC-24776
Opinion by Judge Mathias Judges Riley and Felix concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CC-2891 | June 4, 2024 Page 1 of 8 Mathias, Judge.
[1] First Chicago Insurance Company (“First Chicago”) appeals the Marion
Superior Court’s grant of summary judgment to Ron Jones on his complaint
seeking a declaratory judgment. First Chicago presents three issues for our
review, which we consolidate and restate as whether the trial court erred when
it granted summary judgment to Jones.
[2] We reverse and remand with instructions.
Facts and Procedural History [3] On November 16, 2020, Anita Agboalu, an undocumented immigrant from
Nigeria, was driving a van owned by her grandmother, Dolcey Chinda, when
Agboalu was involved in a collision with Jones. Chinda had insured the van
with an insurance policy issued by First Chicago. Jones was injured and sought
to recover damages from First Chicago, which denied coverage based on
Agboalu’s lack of an Indiana driver’s license.
[4] On July 23, 2021, Jones filed a complaint against Agboalu and First Chicago in
two counts. The first count seeks damages from Agboalu for Jones’s alleged
personal injuries. The second count seeks a declaratory judgment that First
Chicago must defend and indemnify Agboalu in this lawsuit.
[5] First Chicago filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that it did not have
a duty to defend or indemnify Agboalu under the terms of Chinda’s insurance
policy. First Chicago designated evidence showing that, at the time of the 2020
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CC-2891 | June 4, 2024 Page 2 of 8 collision, Agboalu was an undocumented immigrant who had lived in Indiana
since 2016. Also at the time of the collision, Agboalu had a valid driver’s license
issued by Nigeria, but she did not have an Indiana driver’s license. First
Chicago designated provisions from Chinda’s insurance policy, including a
provision excluding coverage (“exclusion (z)”) where “bodily injury or property
damage aris[es] out of the use [of the insured vehicle] by any person, including
an insured person, who is not a properly licensed driver. . . .” Appellant’s App.
Vol. 2, p. 58. Jones filed a response and a summary judgment motion alleging
that First Chicago had a duty to indemnify Agboalu as a matter of law. Jones
argued that exclusion (z) did not apply because Agboalu had a valid Nigerian
driver’s license at the time of the collision.
[6] Following a hearing, the trial court denied First Chicago’s summary judgment
motion and granted Jones’s summary judgment motion. This appeal ensued. 1
Discussion and Decision [7] First Chicago contends that the trial court erred when it denied its summary
judgment motion and entered summary judgment for Jones. Our standard of
review is well settled.
When this Court reviews a grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment, we “stand in the shoes of the trial court.” Burton v. Benner, 140 N.E.3d 848, 851 (Ind. 2020) (quoting
1 This is an interlocutory appeal, but the trial court’s order includes the magic language under Trial Rule 54(B) to make it a final judgment.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CC-2891 | June 4, 2024 Page 3 of 8 Murray v. Indianapolis Public Schools, 128 N.E.3d 450, 452 (Ind. 2019)). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the designated evidentiary matter shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Campbell Hausfeld/Scott Fetzer Co. v. Johnson, 109 N.E.3d 953, 955-56 (Ind. 2018) (quoting Ind. Trial Rule 56(C)). We will draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non- moving party. Ryan v. TCI Architects/Engineers/Contractors. Inc., 72 N.E.3d 908, 912-13 (Ind. 2017). We review summary judgment de novo. Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000, 1003 (Ind. 2014).
Arrendale v. Am. Imaging & MRI, LLC, 183 N.E.3d 1064, 1067-68 (Ind. 2022).
Here, the sole disputed issue turns on the interpretation of the insurance policy,
which is a question of law especially suited for summary judgment. See Jenkins
v. S. Bend Cmty. Sch. Corp., 982 N.E.2d 343, 347 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans.
denied.
[8] Indiana Code section 9-24-1-1 (“section 1”) provides that, “[e]xcept as provided
in section 7 of this chapter, an individual must have a valid” driver’s license or
permit to operate a motor vehicle in Indiana. And Indiana Code section 9-24-1-
7(a)(4) provides in relevant part that section 1 does not apply to certain
individuals, including:
(4) A new Indiana resident who:
(A) possesses a valid driver’s license issued by the state or country of the individual’s former residence; and
(B) is legally present in the United States;
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CC-2891 | June 4, 2024 Page 4 of 8 for a period of sixty (60) days after becoming an Indiana resident, and subject to the restrictions imposed by the state or country of the individual’s former residence while operating upon a highway the type of motor vehicle for which the driver’s license was issued.
In sum, a new Indiana resident has sixty days after establishing her residency to
obtain an Indiana driver’s license and cannot legally drive with a license issued
by another state or another country.
[9] Exclusion (z) of Chinda’s First Chicago insurance policy provides that coverage
does not apply “to bodily injury or property damage arising out of the operation
by any person, including an insured person, who is not a properly licensed driver, or
is in violation of any condition of their driving privileges.” Appellant’s App.
Vol. 2, p. 68 (emphasis added, some emphases omitted). And First Chicago
argues that Agboalu was not a properly licensed driver at the time of the
collision with Jones because she had been a resident of Indiana since 2016 but
did not have an Indiana driver’s license. In other words, First Chicago
maintains that, because Agboalu was required to get an Indiana driver’s license
within sixty days of establishing her residency here and failed to do so, she was
not a “properly licensed driver” under the policy.
[10] In support of his summary judgment motion, Jones argued that, because
Agboalu had a valid Nigerian driver’s license at the time of the collision, she
was a “properly licensed driver” under the policy. The trial court agreed.
[11] As this Court has explained,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CC-2891 | June 4, 2024 Page 5 of 8 [c]ontracts of insurance are governed by the same rules of construction as other contracts. [Bosecker v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE
Court of Appeals of Indiana First Chicago Insurance Company, FILED Appellant-Defendant Jun 04 2024, 9:50 am
CLERK Indiana Supreme Court v. Court of Appeals and Tax Court
Ron Jones, Appellee-Plaintiff
June 4, 2024 Court of Appeals Case No. 23A-CC-2891 Appeal from the Marion Superior Court The Honorable Ian L. Stewart, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 49D05-2107-CC-24776
Opinion by Judge Mathias Judges Riley and Felix concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CC-2891 | June 4, 2024 Page 1 of 8 Mathias, Judge.
[1] First Chicago Insurance Company (“First Chicago”) appeals the Marion
Superior Court’s grant of summary judgment to Ron Jones on his complaint
seeking a declaratory judgment. First Chicago presents three issues for our
review, which we consolidate and restate as whether the trial court erred when
it granted summary judgment to Jones.
[2] We reverse and remand with instructions.
Facts and Procedural History [3] On November 16, 2020, Anita Agboalu, an undocumented immigrant from
Nigeria, was driving a van owned by her grandmother, Dolcey Chinda, when
Agboalu was involved in a collision with Jones. Chinda had insured the van
with an insurance policy issued by First Chicago. Jones was injured and sought
to recover damages from First Chicago, which denied coverage based on
Agboalu’s lack of an Indiana driver’s license.
[4] On July 23, 2021, Jones filed a complaint against Agboalu and First Chicago in
two counts. The first count seeks damages from Agboalu for Jones’s alleged
personal injuries. The second count seeks a declaratory judgment that First
Chicago must defend and indemnify Agboalu in this lawsuit.
[5] First Chicago filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that it did not have
a duty to defend or indemnify Agboalu under the terms of Chinda’s insurance
policy. First Chicago designated evidence showing that, at the time of the 2020
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CC-2891 | June 4, 2024 Page 2 of 8 collision, Agboalu was an undocumented immigrant who had lived in Indiana
since 2016. Also at the time of the collision, Agboalu had a valid driver’s license
issued by Nigeria, but she did not have an Indiana driver’s license. First
Chicago designated provisions from Chinda’s insurance policy, including a
provision excluding coverage (“exclusion (z)”) where “bodily injury or property
damage aris[es] out of the use [of the insured vehicle] by any person, including
an insured person, who is not a properly licensed driver. . . .” Appellant’s App.
Vol. 2, p. 58. Jones filed a response and a summary judgment motion alleging
that First Chicago had a duty to indemnify Agboalu as a matter of law. Jones
argued that exclusion (z) did not apply because Agboalu had a valid Nigerian
driver’s license at the time of the collision.
[6] Following a hearing, the trial court denied First Chicago’s summary judgment
motion and granted Jones’s summary judgment motion. This appeal ensued. 1
Discussion and Decision [7] First Chicago contends that the trial court erred when it denied its summary
judgment motion and entered summary judgment for Jones. Our standard of
review is well settled.
When this Court reviews a grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment, we “stand in the shoes of the trial court.” Burton v. Benner, 140 N.E.3d 848, 851 (Ind. 2020) (quoting
1 This is an interlocutory appeal, but the trial court’s order includes the magic language under Trial Rule 54(B) to make it a final judgment.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CC-2891 | June 4, 2024 Page 3 of 8 Murray v. Indianapolis Public Schools, 128 N.E.3d 450, 452 (Ind. 2019)). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the designated evidentiary matter shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Campbell Hausfeld/Scott Fetzer Co. v. Johnson, 109 N.E.3d 953, 955-56 (Ind. 2018) (quoting Ind. Trial Rule 56(C)). We will draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non- moving party. Ryan v. TCI Architects/Engineers/Contractors. Inc., 72 N.E.3d 908, 912-13 (Ind. 2017). We review summary judgment de novo. Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000, 1003 (Ind. 2014).
Arrendale v. Am. Imaging & MRI, LLC, 183 N.E.3d 1064, 1067-68 (Ind. 2022).
Here, the sole disputed issue turns on the interpretation of the insurance policy,
which is a question of law especially suited for summary judgment. See Jenkins
v. S. Bend Cmty. Sch. Corp., 982 N.E.2d 343, 347 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans.
denied.
[8] Indiana Code section 9-24-1-1 (“section 1”) provides that, “[e]xcept as provided
in section 7 of this chapter, an individual must have a valid” driver’s license or
permit to operate a motor vehicle in Indiana. And Indiana Code section 9-24-1-
7(a)(4) provides in relevant part that section 1 does not apply to certain
individuals, including:
(4) A new Indiana resident who:
(A) possesses a valid driver’s license issued by the state or country of the individual’s former residence; and
(B) is legally present in the United States;
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CC-2891 | June 4, 2024 Page 4 of 8 for a period of sixty (60) days after becoming an Indiana resident, and subject to the restrictions imposed by the state or country of the individual’s former residence while operating upon a highway the type of motor vehicle for which the driver’s license was issued.
In sum, a new Indiana resident has sixty days after establishing her residency to
obtain an Indiana driver’s license and cannot legally drive with a license issued
by another state or another country.
[9] Exclusion (z) of Chinda’s First Chicago insurance policy provides that coverage
does not apply “to bodily injury or property damage arising out of the operation
by any person, including an insured person, who is not a properly licensed driver, or
is in violation of any condition of their driving privileges.” Appellant’s App.
Vol. 2, p. 68 (emphasis added, some emphases omitted). And First Chicago
argues that Agboalu was not a properly licensed driver at the time of the
collision with Jones because she had been a resident of Indiana since 2016 but
did not have an Indiana driver’s license. In other words, First Chicago
maintains that, because Agboalu was required to get an Indiana driver’s license
within sixty days of establishing her residency here and failed to do so, she was
not a “properly licensed driver” under the policy.
[10] In support of his summary judgment motion, Jones argued that, because
Agboalu had a valid Nigerian driver’s license at the time of the collision, she
was a “properly licensed driver” under the policy. The trial court agreed.
[11] As this Court has explained,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CC-2891 | June 4, 2024 Page 5 of 8 [c]ontracts of insurance are governed by the same rules of construction as other contracts. [Bosecker v. Westfield Ins. Co., 724 N.E.2d 241, 243-44 (Ind. 2000).] The goal of contract interpretation is to ascertain and enforce the parties’ intent as manifested in the contract. See Gregg v. Cooper, 812 N.E.2d 210, 215 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. To that end, “[w]e construe the insurance policy as a whole and consider all of the provisions of the contract[,] not just individual words, phrases, or paragraphs.” Id. An ambiguity exists where a provision is susceptible to more than one interpretation and reasonable persons would differ as to its meaning. Id. However, when an insurance contract is clear and unambiguous, the language must be given its plain meaning. See, e.g., Tippecanoe Valley Sch. Corp. v. Landis, 698 N.E.2d 1218, 1221 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998), trans. denied.
Schilling v. Huntington Cnty. Cmty. Sch. Corp., 898 N.E.2d 385, 388 (Ind. Ct. App.
2008).
[12] Here, the parties agree that the phrase “properly licensed driver” is
unambiguous. Looking at the insurance policy as a whole, it includes a choice
of law provision whereby the parties agreed that Indiana law “govern[s] the
interpretation of this policy[.]” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2, p. 81. Thus, First
Chicago is correct that Indiana Code section 9-24-1-1 applies to Agboalu. It is
undisputed that Agboalu has been an Indiana resident since 2016 and was,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CC-2891 | June 4, 2024 Page 6 of 8 therefore, required to obtain an Indiana license within sixty days of establishing
her residence in order to be “properly licensed” under Indiana law. 2
[13] Still, Jones argues that First Chicago made a judicial admission that Agboalu
had a valid license at the time of the collision if she had been driving in any
state other than Indiana. And Jones maintains that, because exclusion (z) does
not state that the driver must be a “properly licensed driver in Indiana” the trial
court correctly entered summary judgment for him. See Appellee’s Br. at 9.
Jones’s argument misses the mark. Indiana law applies to the interpretation of
exclusion (z), and “properly licensed driver” means properly licensed in this
state.
[14] For all these reasons, we reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for
Jones and remand with instructions for the trial court to grant summary
judgment to First Chicago.
[15] Reversed and remanded with instructions.
Riley, J., and Felix, J., concur.
2 To the extent that Jones argued to the trial court that Agboalu was not an Indiana resident because she is a college student, that argument is misplaced. Agboalu is an Indiana resident under Indiana Code section 9-13- 2-78(2). Her attendance at college would only impact her status if she had a legal residence in another state, which she does not. Notably, Jones does not raise that argument on appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CC-2891 | June 4, 2024 Page 7 of 8 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Donald Patrick Eckler Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP Chicago, Illinois
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE John P. Young Young & Young Indianapolis, Indiana
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CC-2891 | June 4, 2024 Page 8 of 8