Joel Stoffel appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of United Farm Family Mutual Insurance Company (“United Farm”). The restated issue is whether the trial court properly concluded that Stoffel is not entitled as a matter of law to coverage under an automobile insurance policy United Farm issued.
Conclusion (slip op. at 9): There is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether United Farm waived its right to enforce the conditional sale policy exclusion. We reverse the granting of summary judgment to United Farm.
Key Analysis (slip op. at 5-6, 8): Conduct of an insurer that is inconsistent with an intention to rely on the requirements of the policy leading the insured to believe that those requirements will not be insisted upon is sufficient to constitute waiver . . . It is United Farm’s position that it would have denied any claim of any kind made by Stoffel with respect to the Buick during the time it was the subject of the conditional sale to Rahschulte. This is inconsistent with United Farm continuing to collect premiums for the policy, with the Buick being the only vehicle on that policy, after United Farm’s agent had actual knowledge of the conditional sale.