ILNews

COA: Insurance policy not contrary to code

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A minimum-coverage insurance company's policy language that excludes coverage for leased vehicles in certain circumstances isn't contrary to Indiana Code, the Court of Appeals ruled today.

In the appeal of Safe Auto Insurance Co. v. Enterprise Leasing Company of Indianapolis, et al., No. 01A02-0712-CV-1120, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Enterprise Leasing on Safe Auto Insurance's complaint for declaratory judgment. Safe Auto filed the complaint arguing its policyholder, Jeffrey Harrison, was not driving a covered vehicle when he was involved in an accident with a car he leased from Enterprise, and as a result, he has no coverage under Safe Auto's policy.

The trial court agreed with Enterprise's argument that Harrison's Safe Auto policy coverage for leased vehicles - which only granted liability coverage on a rented car when Harrison's vehicle was being serviced, repaired, stolen, or destroyed - was contrary to Indiana Code Section 27-8-9-9. That statute states in part, "When a claim arises from the operation of a motor vehicle leased under a written lease agreement, if under the agreement the lessee agrees to provide coverage for damage resulting from his operation of the vehicle, then the motor vehicle insurance coverage of the lessee is primary."

Harrison rented a truck from Enterprise to drive to Virginia because he didn't think his own car was dependable enough for the road trip. When he signed the rental agreement, he declined to purchase supplemental liability protection and never provided written proof of insurance coverage for the rented truck. While in Virginia, he was in an accident, which injured those in the other car.

Safe Auto filed a complaint for declaratory relief in Adams County, requesting a judgment that there is no coverage under the Safe Auto policy and the company doesn't have a duty to defend or indemnify Harrison for the accident.

Harrison didn't have coverage under his policy for the truck because the reason he rented wasn't one of the circumstances under which Safe Auto would provide him coverage on a leased vehicle, wrote Judge Paul Mathias.

Harrison's Safe Auto policy involving lease coverage doesn't conflict with I.C. Section 27-8-9-9 because this section only applies when the lessee agrees to provide insurance coverage. Because Harrison never agreed in writing to provide insurance himself for the truck and believed Enterprise would provide the insurance, the statute isn't applicable to this case, wrote the judge.

Even if the section applied, Safe Auto's policy isn't unenforceable because the policy language doesn't run afoul of the plain language of the statute and there is no law that requires insurance companies to provide coverage for vehicles leased by their insureds for any reason.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's ruling and remanded.
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. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.

ADVERTISEMENT