An automobile mechanic, while driving a customer's van to a body shop to complete repairs that he had begun, was involved in a collision with another auto. The insurer of the second car obtained a substantial judgment against the mechanic but, because the man was unable to pay it, brought an action against the insurer of the customer's van.

The customer's insurer denied liability because of an exclusion applicable when a covered automobile was being "used" by any person employed or engaged in the automobile business, and which occurred while the vehicle was being driven or used as a means of transportation. The injured party's insurer argued that the mechanic was not "using" the van within the meaning of the exclusion, that he was simply driving it to a place where he could repair it for its owner. The latter insurer appealed judgment of the trial court in favor of the customer's insurer.

The appeal court believed that the word "used" was synonymous with "drive" or "operate." It said that, in numerous cases involving factual situations and a policy exclusion similar to the one pertinent to this case, courts have concluded that an accident which occurred while a mechanic was driving the covered vehicle was excluded by virtue of the "automobile business" exclusion.

The judgment of the trial court was affirmed in favor of the customer's insurer. The mechanic drove the van to effectuate repairs, "use" within the meaning of the exclusion.

(AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. NATIONAL INSURANCE ASSOCIATION. No. 49A01-9009-CV506. Court of Appeals of Indiana, Second District. September 9, 1991. 557 North Eastern Reporter 2d 969.)