ILNews

Innocent co-insureds looking for protection

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Advocates in Indiana fighting for “innocent co-insured” protections say they will continue to ask the Legislature to create a new law.

Kerry Hyatt Blomquist, legal director for the Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence, said the problem of innocent co-insureds being denied coverage happens every day. However, the denials are seldom challenged because oftentimes the victims are “so used to being held down that sometimes they are not very good at sticking up for themselves.”

The term “innocent co-insured” refers to individuals who had nothing to do with an intentional act that caused a loss. Yet they are refused payment because they hold the insurance policy jointly with the person who is responsible for the damage.

crider-michael.jpg Crider

A complaint filed in May 2013 was thought to be a lawsuit that would set precedent in favor of the innocent co-insured. That case was settled, and another dispute involving an innocent co-insured indicated the courts were likely to find for the insurance companies.

Consequently, those championing the innocent co-insured issue have decided to try a legislative approach. One attempt has already failed in the Indiana General Assembly, but they say they’ll be back.

A bill introduced by Sen. Michael Crider during the 2013 session would have added a new section to state law prohibiting denial of coverage to an innocent co-insured. The measure did not get a hearing in committee. But Crider, R-Greenfield, is optimistic the Legislature will eventually act.

Advocates thought Womack v. Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Company, et al., 3:13-CV-00495, might be the case that would set precedent.

The plaintiff, Gwendolen Womack of LaPorte County, lost her home to a fire set by her estranged husband. Her insurance provider refused to cover the damages because, the insurance company said, the fire was an intentional act by one of the insured parties and the policy expressly did not cover intentional acts.

To the Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Womack was an innocent co-insured. Blomquist was able to enlist Angela Krahulik, partner at Ice Miller LLP, to take the case pro bono.

Krahulik and her colleagues, Elizabeth Timme and Sarah Murray, filed the complaint in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. The case was settled in January 2014 with the terms remaining confidential.

Allstate declined to comment about the Womack settlement or on its policy, in general, regarding innocent co-insureds.

Krahulik said she and her client feel very fortunate to have settled because another innocent co-insured lost his lawsuit in court. In Deeter v. Indiana Farmers Mutual Insurance Company, 43A04-1305-PL-229, the Indiana Court of Appeals in December affirmed summary judgment for the insurance company based on a plain reading of the insurance contract.

A petition to transfer the Deeter case is pending before the Indiana Supreme Court.

The decision, Krahulik said, indicates the innocent co-insured issue will likely have little traction in the courts. Blomquist says the Deeter case has key differences from Womack’s situation but the coalition is still turning to a legislative approach.

“We actually did think we could find the remedy from the courts,” Blomquist said.

Crider was not working with the coalition when he introduced his innocent co-insured legislation, Senate Bill 170. The former police officer authored the measure after a friend destroyed his ex-wife’s home as part of his suicide and the insurance company refused coverage, which left the ex-wife and children struggling.

“I’m big on fairness,” Crider said. “This just does not feel right to me.”

Provisions in Crider’s bill would have prohibited property and casualty insurers from denying or limiting payment on a claim from an innocent co-insured. Also, insurers could not refuse to issue or renew a policy with an innocent co-insured.

In addition, the bill allowed for stiff penalties – a fine between $25,000 and $50,000 for each act and a revocation of license – for insurance providers who were found to have engaged in unfair and deceptive acts.

When he introduced the bill, Crider said he encountered many people who were interested in the issue which leads him to believe, like Blomquist, that denials to innocent co-insureds are more common than many realize.

The Legislature, Crider said, will have to be educated on the issue, so getting a bill passed may take several tries.

“The cause needs to be addressed,” he said. “If there is somebody else who is a better champion of this issue, I am willing to step aside to get it done.”•

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT