ILNews

Appeals panel reverses summary judgment for insurer in hit-and-run

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Summary judgment in favor of an insurer should not have been granted in a hit-and-run case, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Friday. The court reversed a Marion Superior Court order and held that the hit-and-run driver was uninsured as a matter of law.

Judge Melissa May wrote a unanimous seven-page ruling that reversed summary judgment in favor of the insurer in Shannon Robinson and Bryan Robinson v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 49A02-1211-PL-908.

Bryan Robinson was the driver of a vehicle struck by a Jeep that fled the crash scene. Robinson a covered driver under a policy held by Shannon, his mother. Bryan wasn’t injured but the vehicle was totaled, and Erie denied coverage on the ground that the policy didn’t include collision coverage.

The trial court granted summary judgment for Erie, which argued a hit-and-run driver can’t be identified and no coverage was available under the uninsured driver provision because Bryan wasn’t injured.

“As the car that hit Bryan must be considered an uninsured motor vehicle, Erie’s summary judgment motion should have been denied and Robinson’s should have been granted. We accordingly reverse,” May wrote.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT