Martin v. Powers
Annotate this CaseDefendant drove a car he had rented from Enterprise Rent-A-Car (Enterprise) into Plaintiff’s knee. At the time of the incident, Plaintiff was insured under a policy issued by IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company (IDS), which provided uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant, Defendant’s automobile liability insurer, and Enterprise. Plaintiff also served IDS with a copy of the summons and complaint for the purpose of bringing a claim under his uninsured motorist coverage policy. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of IDS, concluding that the rental car did not qualify as an “uninsured motor vehicle” under the policy. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the rental car was an “uninsured motor vehicle” under the policy. Remanded.
Court Description:
Authoring Judge: Chief Justice Jeffrey S. Bivins
Trial Court Judge: Judge James G. Martin, III
This case arises out of an incident in which the Defendant, Gregory Powers, drove a car he had rented from Enterprise Rent-A-Car ( Enterprise ) into the Plaintiff, Edward Martin. The Plaintiff sued the Defendant, the Defendant s automobile liability insurer, and Enterprise. Additionally, the Plaintiff provided notice of the lawsuit to his own automobile liability insurance carrier, IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company ( IDS ), in order to recover through the uninsured motorist coverage provision of the Plaintiff s policy ( the Policy ). IDS denied coverage and moved for summary judgment, arguing that the rental car ( the Rental Car ) did not qualify as an uninsured motor vehicle under the Policy. The trial court granted IDS s motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. We granted review to determine whether the Rental Car qualified as an uninsured motor vehicle under the Policy. We hold that the Rental Car was an uninsured motor vehicle under the Policy. Accordingly, we reverse the grant of summary judgment to IDS and remand this matter for further proceedings.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.