is limited to current owners, there are some respectable arguments that suggest the opposite conclusion. First, the preceding arguments have important limitations. In Larkin’s Body Shop, for instance, the Indiana Court of Appeals did not hold that acquisition is synonymous with ownership for all purposes. Larkin’s Body Shop, 673 N.E.2d at 849. Indeed, the court noted that its holding was specific to the circumstances of the case. Id. In addition, although certificates of salvage title operate as “proof of ownership,” so too do certificates of title. Yet, it is clear that an entity can assign its ownership interest in a vehicle without immediately providing a certificate of title. See Ind.Code § 9-17-3-3; Madrid v. Bloomington Auto Co., Inc., 782 N.E.2d 386, 395 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (<HOLDING>). Thus, dealers can and, accordingly to
holding that under indiana law ownership can be transferred consistent with the ucc irrespective of whether the certificate of title has been delivered holding that article 2 of the ucc preempts common law claims recognizing that the fact that a defendant has liability insurance can be established at trial where the issue of ownership is in dispute holding that delivery of possession of vehicle without delivery of certificate of title did not transfer ownership even though full payment had been received holding the concept of reliance has been purposefully abandoned for express warranty claims under the ucc