 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
American Premier Insurance Co. v. Davenport5/27/2005
r and girlfriend. The issue presented is whether the Buick Skylark was a "temporary substitute" for Alston's own vehicle and thus, was a "covered auto" under the policy, or whether the Buick was "furnished or available" for Alston's "regular use" and thus, excluded from coverage under the policy.
The interpretation of an insurance policy is a question of law for the Court. Cinelli v. Ward, 997 S.W.2d 474 (Ky.App. 1998). "We review questions of law de novo and, thus, without deference to the interpretation afforded by the circuit court." Id. at 476. Furthermore, it is well-established that an exclusion in an insurance policy is to be interpreted narrowly, and all questions are to be resolved in favor of the insured. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Powell-Walton-Milward, Inc., 870 S.W.2d 223 (Ky. 1994).
American contends the Buick Skylark was furnished or available for Alston's regular use. American asserts that Alston's testimony revealed that his brother had given Alston the keys two or three days before the accident because the brother was going to prison. American asserts that Alston had free use of the Buick at the time of the accident. As such, American contends the exclusion applies and no coverage was provided by the policy.
The Davenports assert the testimony clearly established Alston intended to use the vehicle as a "temporary substitute" for his own vehicle. The Davenports point specifically to Alston's response when asked why he was driving the Buick Skylark on the day of the accident. Alston responded as follows: "My vehicle was broke down. I have two vehicles: One was being serviced---Iwas getting ready to get it serviced; the other was broke down." Alston further testified that one of his vehicles was repaired and running a few days after the accident.
We believe the evidence clearly establishes that Alston's use of the Buick was as a "temporary substitute" for his own vehicle and that it was not "furnished or available" for his "regular use." Alston's own testimony, which was unrefuted, revealed that his two vehicles were not in working condition and that one of the two was repaired a few days following the accident. Thus, we conclude the circuit court properly determined that the insurance policy American issued to Alston provided coverage for the claims asserted by the Davenports arising from Alston's use of the Buick owned by his brother and girlfriend. As such, the circuit court properly granted the Davenports' motion for partial summary judgment.
For the foregoing reasons, the order of the Jefferson Circuit Court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
|