ILNews

Court hits on 2 first impression issues about prejudgment interest

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed a trial judge decision against awarding a litigant prejudgment interest in an uninsured motorist case, examining two issues of first impression and finding that state statute warrants the litigant receive that money even when it exceeds insurance policy limits for those types of claims.

A unanimous decision came today in Kathy Inman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., No. 41A01-1005-CT-223, which involves a Johnson County woman’s action against State Farm Insurance Company stemming from a November 2006 car collision. Kathy Inman sued on grounds that the other driver was negligent when he struck the rear of her vehicle. Though she later settled with that driver’s insurance company for the $50,000 limit, Inman amended her complaint against State Farm seeking an additional $50,000 in underinsured motorist benefits from her policy that had a $100,000 per person liability cap.

In June 2009, she filed a written offer to settle the case for the policy limit of $50,000, pursuant to Indiana Code 34-51-4-6. State Farm didn’t respond to that request, and earlier this year a jury returned a verdict in Inman’s favor for $50,000. She filed a motion for prejudgment interest in the amount of $3,616.44, plus $13.10 per day after that filing on April 12, 2010. Special Judge Richard Tandy summarily denied that motion.

Analyzing that state law known as the Tort Prejudgment Interest Statute, the appellate court looked at State Farm’s contention that Inman doesn’t meet the TPIS requirements because an underinsured motorist claim is not a civil action arising out of tortious conduct as required by the statute. Though no Indiana cases address that issue, the panel turned to Woods v. Farmers Insurance of Columbus, Inc, 666 N.E.2d 283 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995) for guidance, as well as rulings from Oklahoma, North Carolina, Georgia, and Louisiana.

“We find the reasoning of these cases, as well as similar ones in other jurisdictions, to be persuasive,” Judge Patricia Riley wrote. “We therefore hold that a claim against one’s insurer for underinsured motorist benefits is a civil action arising out of tortious conduct, and the award of prejudgment interest pursuant to IC 34-51-4-5 in such a case is appropriate.”

The court also looked at prejudgment interest in excess of the policy limits, a second issue that no Indiana court has addressed. They looked to Potomac Insurance Company v. Howard, 813 S.W.2d 557 (Tex Ct. App. 1991) for guidance, as well as the Michigan Supreme Court in Denham v. Bedford, 287 N.W.2d 168 (Mich. 1979).

“Here, based on the purpose of the TPIS as well as public policy considerations as already stated in Denham, we hold that an insurer can be required to pay prejudgment interest in excess of uninsured and/or underinsured motorist limits in an action brought by an insured for failure to pay uninsured and/or underinsured motorist coverage,” Judge Riley wrote.

The holding is consistent with what the Northern District of Indiana concluded in Schimizzi v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Company, 928 F. Supp. 760 (N.D. Ind. 1996), and also with the Indiana Supreme Court’s treatment in Cahoons v. Cummings, 734 N.E.2d 535, 547 (Ind. 2000) of prejudgment interest in medical malpractice cases where the court had held a qualified health care provider is responsible for collateral litigation prejudgment interest expenses over the statutory cap.

“The rationale for this treatment is the same rationale set forth in other civil actions arising out of tortious conduct,” the court wrote. “Specifically, in Cahoons, the Indiana supreme court explained that if the defendant has the option to terminate the dispute at a known dollar cost, and chooses not to do so, that defendant and not the plaintiff should bear the cost of the time and value of money in the intervening period if the ultimate result is within the parameters of the legislature.”

Noting State Farm didn’t challenge the prejudgment interest amount here, the appellate court reversed the trial judge and ordered that amount be paid.
 

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. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  2. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

  3. No, Ron Drake is not running against incumbent Larry Bucshon. That’s totally wrong; and destructively misleading to say anything like that. All political candidates, including me in the 8th district, are facing voters, not incumbents. You should not firewall away any of voters’ options. We need them all now more than ever. Right? Y’all have for decades given the Ds and Rs free 24/7/365 coverage of taxpayer-supported promotion at the expense of all alternatives. That’s plenty of head-start, money-in-the-pocket advantage for parties and people that don’t need any more free immunities, powers, privileges and money denied all others. Now it’s time to play fair and let voters know that there are, in fact, options. Much, much better, and not-corrupt options. Liberty or Bust! Andy Horning Libertarian for IN08 USA House of Representatives Freedom, Indiana

  4. A great idea! There is absolutely no need to incarcerate HRC's so-called "super predators" now that they can be adequately supervised on the streets by the BLM czars.

  5. One of the only qualms I have with this article is in the first paragraph, that heroin use is especially dangerous because it is highly addictive. All opioids are highly addictive. It is why, after becoming addicted to pain medications prescribed by their doctors for various reasons, people resort to heroin. There is a much deeper issue at play, and no drug use should be taken lightly in this category.

ADVERTISEMENT