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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It really doesn't matter what the law IS, if law enforcement refuses to take reports (or take them seriously), if courts refuse to allow unrepresented parties to speak (especially in Small Claims, which is supposedly "informal"). It doesn't matter what the law IS, if constituents are unable to make effective contact or receive any meaningful response from their representatives. Two of our pets were unnecessarily killed; court records reflect that I "abandoned" them. Not so; when I was denied one of them (and my possessions, which by court order I was supposed to be able to remove), I went directly to the court. And earlier, when I tried to have the DV PO extended (it expired while the subject was on probation for violating it), the court denied any extension. The result? Same problems, less than eight hours after expiration. Ironic that the county sheriff was charged (and later pleaded to) with intimidation, but none of his officers seemed interested or capable of taking such a report from a private citizen. When I learned from one officer what I needed to do, I forwarded audio and transcript of one occurrence and my call to law enforcement (before the statute of limitations expired) to the prosecutor's office. I didn't even receive an acknowledgement. Earlier, I'd gone in to the prosecutor's office and been told that the officer's (written) report didn't match what I said occurred. Since I had the audio, I can only say that I have very little faith in Indiana government or law enforcement.

  2. One can only wonder whether Mr. Kimmel was paid for his work by Mr. Burgh ... or whether that bill fell to the citizens of Indiana, many of whom cannot afford attorneys for important matters. It really doesn't take a judge(s) to know that "pavement" can be considered a deadly weapon. It only takes a brain and some education or thought. I'm glad to see the conviction was upheld although sorry to see that the asphalt could even be considered "an issue".

  3. In response to bryanjbrown: thank you for your comment. I am familiar with Paul Ogden (and applaud his assistance to Shirley Justice) and have read of Gary Welsh's (strange) death (and have visited his blog on many occasions). I am not familiar with you (yet). I lived in Kosciusko county, where the sheriff was just removed after pleading in what seems a very "sweetheart" deal. Unfortunately, something NEEDS to change since the attorneys won't (en masse) stand up for ethics (rather making a show to please the "rules" and apparently the judges). I read that many attorneys are underemployed. Seems wisdom would be to cull the herd and get rid of the rotting apples in practice and on the bench, for everyone's sake as well as justice. I'd like to file an attorney complaint, but I have little faith in anything (other than the most flagrant and obvious) resulting in action. My own belief is that if this was medicine, there'd be maimed and injured all over and the carnage caused by "the profession" would be difficult to hide. One can dream ... meanwhile, back to figuring out to file a pro se "motion to dismiss" as well as another court required paper that Indiana is so fond of providing NO resources for (unlike many other states, who don't automatically assume that citizens involved in the court process are scumbags) so that maybe I can get the family law attorney - whose work left me with no settlement, no possessions and resulted in the death of two pets (etc ad nauseum) - to stop abusing the proceedings supplemental and small claims rules and using it as a vehicle for harassment and apparently, amusement.

  4. Been on social security sense sept 2011 2massive strokes open heart surgery and serious ovarian cancer and a blood clot in my lung all in 14 months. Got a letter in may saying that i didn't qualify and it was in form like i just applied ,called social security she said it don't make sense and you are still geting a check in june and i did ,now i get a check from my part D asking for payment for july because there will be no money for my membership, call my prescription coverage part D and confirmed no check will be there.went to social security they didn't want to answer whats going on just said i should of never been on it .no one knows where this letter came from was California im in virginia and been here sense my strokes and vcu filed for my disability i was in the hospital when they did it .It's like it was a error . My ,mothers social security was being handled in that office in California my sister was dealing with it and it had my social security number because she died last year and this letter came out of the same office and it came at the same time i got the letter for my mother benefits for death and they had the same date of being typed just one was on the mail Saturday and one on Monday. . I think it's a mistake and it should been fixed instead there just getting rid of me .i never got a formal letter saying when i was being tsken off.

  5. Employers should not have racially discriminating mind set. It has huge impact on the society what the big players do or don't do in the industry. Background check is conducted just to verify whether information provided by the prospective employee is correct or not. It doesn't have any direct combination with the rejection of the employees. If there is rejection, there should be something effective and full-proof things on the table that may keep the company or the people associated with it in jeopardy.

ADVERTISEMENT