ILNews

COA: Policy doesn't cover car in accident

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled in favor of an insurance company in a suit seeking compensation for damages by the insured's grandson after a car accident. The appellate court also used the opinion to remind counsel of the rules for filing appendices.

The Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment in favor of Alexis and Amber Wroblewski and their mother Christine Lewis, in Motorists Mutual Insurance Co. v. Alexis Wroblewski, et al., No. 46A03-0807-CV-352. Amber was riding in Aaron Litherland's car, which was involved in an accident. He got the car as a 16th birthday present from his grandparents and legal guardians, Bertha and Robert Shemberger. The car was insured by a different company than Motorists Mutual, who insured the Shembergers' cars. Bertha signed the financial responsibility form pursuant to Indiana statute, which requires a minor's application for a driver's license to be signed and sworn by a guardian willing to assume joint responsibility for any injury or damage the minor causes while driving if the minor is liable.

The Wroblewskis filed a suit following the accident and named Bertha as a defendant bearing financial responsibility. The trial court entered judgment against Bertha for nearly $100,000. Then the family filed a suit against Motorists Mutual, claiming the company's policy provided coverage to Bertha for the judgment entered against her. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the Wroblewskis and denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment.

Bertha's policy with Motorists Mutual clearly provides no liability coverage for Aaron's car because it doesn't cover any vehicle that's owned by any family member, other than Bertha's covered cars, wrote Judge Patricia Riley. The appellate court cited the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals case, Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Moen, 940 F.2d 1069, 1074-75 (7th Cir. 1991), which held that identical exclusionary language in a homeowner's police released an insurer from liability when the family member owned the non-covered automobile in the accident. Bertha may have been liable because of Indiana Code, but her insurer's policy language determines whether the liability is covered by Motorists Mutual, wrote the judge. The case was remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of Motorists Mutual.

The opinion also reminds parties to give the court a complete appellate appendix. The insurer's original appendix didn't include any of the documents needed for review and the Wroblewskis' appendix only presented a transcript of the hearing on the motions for summary judgment. Motorists Mutual submitted a supplemental appendix after the appellate court issued an order.

"As no designated materials were before us, Motorists Mutual's issue on appeal would surely have been waived. Lately, this court has seen an increase in the filing of incomplete appendices," wrote the judge. "We strongly caution counsel to familiarize themselves with the appellate rules governing the filing of appendices."

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT