Storie v. RANDY'S AUTO SALES, LLC

926 N.E.2d 487, 2010 Ind. LEXIS 341, 2010 WL 1920192
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedMay 13, 2010
Docket94S00-0912-CQ-559
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 926 N.E.2d 487 (Storie v. RANDY'S AUTO SALES, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Storie v. RANDY'S AUTO SALES, LLC, 926 N.E.2d 487, 2010 Ind. LEXIS 341, 2010 WL 1920192 (Ind. 2010).

Opinion

DICKSON, Justice.

Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 64, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Cireuit has certified, and we have accepted, the following question concerning the application of Indiana law: "whether an entity that purchases and later sells a wrecked vehicle is required to apply for a salvage title under Ind.Code § 9-22-38, 11(e) when it no longer owns the vehicle upon receipt of the certificate of title." Storie v. Randy's Auto Sales, LLC, 589 F.3d 873, 881 (7th Cir.2009). As explained below, we answer in the affirmative.

This certified question arises in a federal civil action. Larry D. Storie, who bought a truck that had been involved in a fatal accident the previous year, instituted the action against Randy's Auto Sales, LLC, alleging that Randy's failed to apply for a salvage title as required by Indiana law. The federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of Randy's. Storie v. Randy's Auto Sales, LLC, No. 1:07-cv-22-WTL-DML, 2009 WL 348751 (S.D.Ind. Feb.6, 2009). Storie's appeal to the Seventh Cireuit Court of Appeals resulted in this certified question.

A certificate of salvage title is required under the Indiana Motor Vehicle Code for certain motor vehicles if either:; (a) *488 "aln insurance company has determined that it is economically impractical to repair the wrecked or damaged motor vehicle ... and has made an agreed settlement with the insured or claimant;" (b) the vehicle is owned by a self-insured business and the cost of repairing it "exceeds seventy percent (70%) of the fair market value immediately before [it] was wrecked or damaged;" or (c) the vehicle is a "flood damaged vehicle." Ind.Code § 9-22-3-3(a)..

The certified question seeks direction from this Court regarding the application of the following statutory provision:

Any other person acquiring a wrecked or damaged motor vehicle, motorcycle, semitrailer, or recreational vehicle that meets at least one (1) of the criteria set forth in section 3 of this chapter, which acquisition is not evidenced by a certificate of salvage title, shall apply to the bureau within thirty-one (81) days after receipt of the certificate of title for a certificate of salvage title.

Ind.Code § 9-22-3-11(e) 1 In its order certifying the question to us, the Seventh Circuit graciously observes that "Ind.Code § 9-22-3-11(e) is not a model of clarity." *489 Storie, 589 F.3d at 876. The order notes that the statute's directive requiring application for a certificate of salvage title "might capture current and former owners alike," and yet, "a variety of arguments suggests that former owners might nevertheless be exempt." Id.

We emphasize at the outset that the certified question does not present us with the general question of whether Randy's was required to apply for a certificate of salvage title. More specifically, we are not asked whether the phrase "[alny other person" in subsection 11(e) applies to dealers. The Seventh Circuit has already found Randy's contention that subsection 11(e) does not apply to dealers is without merit. Id. at 880. The court likewise rejected Randy's argument that dealers can rely on insurance companies as gatekeepers. Id. Because of the specificity of the certified question, we do not address these issues. The focus of the certified question is "whether ongoing ownership is required." Id.

The language of subsection 11(e) makes no clear distinction between current and former owners. Its operative language essentially declares that anyone "acquiring" a wrecked or damaged motor vehicle (for which there is no existing salvage title) "shall apply" to the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles for a certificate of salvage title within thirty-one days after receiving the vehicle's original certificate of title. As noted by the Seventh Circuit, "Section 11 makes no explicit reference to an ongoing requirement of ownership." Id. at 876.

On the other hand, Indiana Code § 9-22-3-4 directs the issuance of a certificate of salvage title "as proof of ownership for a salvage motor vehicle" upon proper application, fee payment, and surrender of the vehicle's original certificate of title An entity that purchases a salvage vehicle may sell it to another party before receiving the original certificate of title because the legal ownership of a vehicle is determined by the Uniform Commercial Code, not by Indiana's Certificate of Title Act. Madrid v. Bloomington Auto Co., Inc., 782 N.E.2d 386, 395 (Ind.Ct.App.2008), trans. mot sought. And Indiana Code § 9-17-3-3(a)(4) allows dealers a twenty-one-day grace period following the date of a vehicle's sale to deliver the certificate of title to the purchaser. It is therefore possible for an entity acquiring a salvage vehicle to have relinquished ownership of it before receiving the original certificate of title, which receipt triggers the requirement in subsection l1(e) to apply for a salvage title. In such a case, requiring the acquiring entity to obtain a salvage title for a vehicle it has already sold would appear to produce a false "proof of ownership." A construction limiting "acquiring" to the period of ownership is also supported by Indiana Code § 9-22-3-6, which expressly permits a salvage title to be "assigned by the person who owns the salvage vehicle to another buyer." There is no comparable express authorization for the assignment of a salvage title by one who obtains or receives a salvage title after transferring ownership to another (but post-ownership assignment of a salvage title is not expressly precluded).

A contrary implication, however, is suggested by the language of subsection 11(e) that allows an entity acquiring a salvage vehicle thirty-one days after receipt of its certificate of title within which to apply for a certificate of salvage title.: Once it acquires a salvage vehicle, an entity is free to immediately transfer ownership of it, sub-jeet to statutory requirements for the delivery of the certificate of title contemporaneous with the sale, or in the case of licensed dealers, within twenty-one days and subject to certain conditions. Ind. Code § 9-17-3-8. A salvage vehicle thus *490 can be acquired and then sold in a short period of time, well before the statutory deadline for applying for a certificate of salvage title. By affirmatively declaring that the acquiring entity has an extended length of time after receipt of the original certificate of title within which to apply for a salvage title, rather than requiring such application immediately upon taking ownership of the vehicle, the legislative scheme suggests that the acquiring entity's obligation to apply continues beyond its period of ownership.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hamilton v. City of New Albany
698 F. App'x 821 (Seventh Circuit, 2017)
Storie v. Randy's Auto Sales, LLC
589 F.3d 873 (Seventh Circuit, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
926 N.E.2d 487, 2010 Ind. LEXIS 341, 2010 WL 1920192, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/storie-v-randys-auto-sales-llc-ind-2010.