Background
Highland Police Officer Michael Yonkman was investigating a suspected shoplifting on February 17, 2023, when the suspect drove a Ford Escape in reverse and pinned him against another parked vehicle. Yonkman had parked his department-issued cruiser near the Escape, left its engine running, and approached the suspect on foot. Only about sixty seconds passed between Yonkman leaving the cruiser and the collision. He later sued the suspect and Argonaut Insurance Company, the police department’s uninsured- and underinsured-motorist carrier, seeking compensation for his injuries.
Yonkman filed on February 18, 2025—two years and one day after the incident. Argonaut argued that Indiana’s two-year personal-injury statute of limitations barred the suit and that Yonkman was not an insured because the policy covered a person “occupying” a covered auto, defined as being in, upon, getting in, on, out, or off it. The trial court converted Argonaut’s dismissal motion into a summary-judgment motion. It ruled for Argonaut on timeliness, reasoning that the governor had shifted the state-employee observance of Washington’s Birthday from February 17, 2025, to December 26. The trial court therefore did not decide coverage. Yonkman appealed after his motion to correct error was denied.
The Court’s Holding
The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed and ordered partial summary judgment for Yonkman on both disputed issues. First, Judge DeBoer explained that Indiana Trial Rule 6(A) extends a filing period when its final day falls on a legal holiday defined by statute. Indiana Code section 1-1-9-1 designates the third Monday in February as a legal holiday “for all purposes.” Because February 17, 2025, was the third Monday of the month, the limitations period ran through February 18, making Yonkman’s complaint timely.
The governor’s authority under Indiana Code section 1-1-9-2 to shift a holiday’s observance did not change that conclusion. Reading the provision as a whole, the court held that the governor may change when state employees receive a paid day off but may not redefine the legal holiday for every statutory or procedural purpose. The legislatively fixed date continued to control deadline calculations. The court also observed that a policy provision requiring suit before the statutory deadline would contravene the public policy behind Indiana’s uninsured-motorist statute to the extent it offered less protection than an insured claimant would have against a motorist carrying liability coverage.
The court then addressed coverage even though the trial court had not reached it. Under Indiana’s four-factor Miller test, “occupying” a vehicle depends on the distance from the vehicle, the elapsed time after exiting, the person’s opportunity to reach safety, and the person’s intentions regarding the vehicle. The inquiry asks whether the person maintained an active, vehicle-oriented relationship rather than demanding physical contact. Yonkman parked near the suspect, had been outside his cruiser for less than a minute, intended to return to its computer to investigate the suspect, and would have used it either to pursue or transport him. Those undisputed facts established occupancy as a matter of law even though the cruiser was not struck.
Key Takeaways
- For Trial Rule 6(A), a holiday date fixed by Indiana Code section 1-1-9-1 remains a legal holiday even when the governor moves the paid observance for state employees to another date.
- A claimant can be “occupying” a covered vehicle without touching it. Indiana’s Miller test focuses on the person’s continuing relationship to the vehicle, not distance or elapsed time alone.
- Police work performed briefly outside a cruiser may remain vehicle-oriented when the officer expects to use the cruiser’s equipment, pursue a suspect, or transport an arrestee.
- On review of summary judgment, the Court of Appeals may decide an issue presented by the motions even if the trial court resolved the case on a different ground.
Why It Matters
Yonkman gives Indiana litigators a concrete deadline rule: the statutory holiday calendar, rather than an executive decision about employee days off, controls whether Trial Rule 6(A) extends a limitations period. Lawyers calculating a filing deadline that lands on the third Monday in February should treat that day as a legal holiday for all purposes and file by the end of the next qualifying day. The decision also cautions insurers against relying on contractual suit limitations that would narrow the protection Indiana law requires.
For coverage practitioners, the case reinforces Indiana’s functional view of vehicle occupancy. An employee need not be inside or immediately touching a covered auto if the evidence shows an active operational relationship to it. That point is especially important for police officers, roadside workers, delivery drivers, and others whose assigned duties routinely require them to step away from a vehicle while continuing to use it as a base of operations.