controlled the property. The land-sale contract provided that Smith would obtain certain levels of casualty and liability insurance for the property and that the policies would name both Smith and the Jacksons as insureds. That provision was not implemented. Instead, Smith paid Jackson the amounts of the premiums to maintain the existing policies, but Smith was never added as an insured. The policy protected the home against fire and casualty loss, as well as lability to third parties. As with the requirement that Smith receive permission before improving the property, Jackson's maintaining insurance on the property is consistent with his desire to protect his financial investment and does not demonstrate his control. See Helton v. Harbrecht, 701 N.E.2d 1265, 1268 (Ind.Ct.App.1998) (<HOLDING>), trans. denied. Third, Scheible notes that
holding that a town was not liable as an operator where it entered into a lease with private parties for the disposal of septic tank and cesspool waste but the plaintiffs offered no evidence  to suggest that the town carried out disposal activities at the site provided personnel equipment or supplies had or exerted any control over the activities or management at the site holding construction company had actual notice of dangerous condition that its employees created holding that expert testimony was needed to establish the standard of care in a case involving traffic control at a construction site because of the complex rules governing traffic control in that context holding that construction company that carried general work site liability insurance did not control partiallyconstructed home at the time of accident when none of its employees had been at the site for a month holding that insurance company operating under a reservation of rights had the right and the duty to control the defense until such time as it was determined that it had no liability insurance coverage