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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT