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. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT