ILNews

COA: Government vehicle exclusion is void

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals concluded today in a matter of first impression that the government vehicle exclusion in underinsured motorist policies is void as against public policy.

The issue arose in Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. James and Jan Trosky, et al., No. 29A02-0902-CV-148, in which Cincinnati argued Indiana substantive law should apply in determining whether government vehicles could be excluded from the definition of underinsured motor vehicle in the policies of the parties involved in the litigation. Courtland Brown, Kyle Trosky, and Kaitlin Culpepper were driving home from Florida in a car owned by Brown's parents. Culpepper was a permissive driver at the time of the accident, in which their car collided with one owned by the Florida Highway Patrol. Trosky was killed and Culpepper was injured.

The families sought excess underinsured motorist coverage from Cincinnati, which provided excess UIM coverage to the Browns; and from State Farm Fire, which provided excess UIM coverage to the Troskys. The trial court applied Florida substantive law to determine the exclusion of government vehicles was void as against public policy. The court granted summary judgment for the Troskys in their motion for summary judgment against Cincinnati and State Farm Fire, and granted Culpepper's motion for partial-summary judgment against Cincinnati.

The appellate court agreed with Cincinnati that Indiana substantive law should have been applied, which hasn't addressed this question. The Court of Appeals ultimately agreed with cases from other jurisdictions that held government vehicle exclusions from the definition of underinsured motorist in insurance polices are void because they are against public policy.

"Our UM/UIM statutes mandate minimum coverage, and the insurance policy exclusions for government-owned vehicles deny coverage, where it is required by statute," wrote Judge Ezra Friedlander. "These exclusions conflict with the express language of the statute by narrowing the definition of underinsured motor vehicles, and are void as against public policy."

The appellate court also agreed with cases from other jurisdictions that held the sovereign immunity defense isn't available to UIM carriers who argue that once the statutory cap has been paid by the governmental unit, the insured is no longer "legally entitled to recover."

The FHP vehicle was underinsured, and the trial court correctly determined Culpepper was entitled to recover from the Cincinnati personal liability umbrella policy, wrote the judge. The appellate court also affirmed the decision that the Troskys could recover under the Cincinnati, State Farm Fire, and their State Farm Auto policy's UIM provisions for Kyle's wrongful death; and that the Troskys should first recover under Kyle's auto policy, and then receive pro rata coverage from Cincinnati and State Farm Fire, wrote Judge Friedlander.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. I work with some older lawyers in the 70s, 80s, and they are sharp as tacks compared to the foggy minded, undisciplined, inexperienced, listless & aimless "youths" being churned out by the diploma mill law schools by the tens of thousands. A client is generally lucky to land a lawyer who has decided to stay in practice a long time. Young people shouldn't kid themselves. Experience is golden especially in something like law. When you start out as a new lawyer you are about as powerful as a babe in the cradle. Whereas the silver halo of age usually crowns someone who can strike like thunder.

  2. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  3. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  4. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  5. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

ADVERTISEMENT