ILNews

Court reverses insurer's summary judgment

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals today reversed a summary judgment award in favor of an auto insurance company, holding that an uninsured-motorist claim was not barred by state statute and language of the insurance policy.

In Mary Lou Smith, et al. v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co., No. 84A01-0611-CV-516, the appellate court had to decide whether Smith's claim for uninsured motorist coverage against her policyholder, Auto-Owners, was allowed based on her policy and Indiana Code 27-7-5-4.

Smith and several family members were involved in a car accident caused by Nellie Rogers in February 1999. The Smiths filed a personal injury action against Rogers in February 2001. Just a few days before the trial was set to start in 2004, Rogers' attorney told the Smiths' attorney that Rogers' insurance company, Highlands Insurance Co., had filed for receivership in Texas. That same day, the Smiths' attorney sent a letter to Auto-Owners to inform the company the Smiths would be making an uninsured-motorist claim. Later, the Smiths added Auto-Owners as a defendant in their personal-injury action.

Auto-Owners filed a complaint for declaratory judgment, arguing Indiana statutes and the terms of the Smiths insurance policy prevented them from making an uninsured motorist claim more than two years after an accident. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Auto-Owners.

At issue in this case is the interpretation and application of the insurance policy and definition of insolvency regarding uninsured-motorist claims as defined by Indiana Code, wrote Judge James Kirsch. He and Judge Margret Robb overturned the trial court grant of summary judgment.

Indiana Code 27-7-5-4 says uninsured motorist coverage under an insurer's insolvency protection applies only when the tortfeasor's insurer becomes insolvent within two years after the accident. The Smiths' insurance policy with Auto-Owners also says they must file an uninsured-motorist claim within two years from the date that the cause of action accrued. However, in the Smith's case, the cause of action for the claim is the insolvency of Rogers' insurer.

Before discovering Highland had become insolvent, the Smiths would not have been able to bring a claim for uninsured motorist with Auto-Owners, wrote Judge Kirsch. The statute of limitations for IC 27-7-5-4 runs from the date of the accident or the date of the insurer's insolvency, whichever is later. For someone to claim uninsured-motorist coverage due to insolvency of the tortfeasor's insurer, the cause of action is not complete until there is an accident, the tortfeasor's insurer becomes insolvent, and the injured party learns of the insolvency. Judge Kirsch wrote the claim does not need to be filed within two years of the accident but within two years after learning the tortfeasor's insurer became insolvent. Even though Highland was placed in receivership in November 2003, the Smiths didn't learn about until just before their trial in March 2004.

Because questions of fact exist as to when the insolvency of Highland occurred and if the Smiths then filed their claim in a timely manner, summary judgment in favor of Auto-Owners is reversed.

Judge Michael Barnes dissented from the majority because he believed the plaintiffs do not present a question of fact regarding the potential date of Highland's insolvency and the plain language of IC 27-7-5-4 bars the plaintiffs' suit. Indiana Code would require the Smiths to present evidence that as of February 2001, Highland was unable to pay its obligations or its liabilities exceeded its assets at the time. The Smiths rely on receivership documents, which did not come out until four years after the date of the accident and those documents show Highland was not experiencing financial difficulties until after the two years as is required by Indiana Statute and Auto-Owner's policy.
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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Oh, the name calling was not name calling, it was merely social commentary making this point, which is on the minds of many, as an aside to the article's focus: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100111082327AAmlmMa Or, if you prefer a local angle, I give you exhibit A in that analysis of viva la difference: http://fox59.com/2015/03/16/moed-appears-on-house-floor-says-hes-not-resigning/

  2. Too many attorneys take their position as a license to intimidate and threaten non attorneys in person and by mail. Did find it ironic that a reader moved to comment twice on this article could not complete a paragraph without resorting to insulting name calling (rethuglican) as a substitute for reasoned discussion. Some people will never get the point this action should have made.

  3. People have heard of Magna Carta, and not the Provisions of Oxford & Westminster. Not that anybody really cares. Today, it might be considered ethnic or racial bias to talk about the "Anglo Saxon common law." I don't even see the word English in the blurb above. Anyhow speaking of Edward I-- he was famously intolerant of diversity himself viz the Edict of Expulsion 1290. So all he did too like making parliament a permanent institution-- that all must be discredited. 100 years from now such commemorations will be in the dustbin of history.

  4. Oops, I meant discipline, not disciple. Interesting that those words share such a close relationship. We attorneys are to be disciples of the law, being disciplined to serve the law and its source, the constitutions. Do that, and the goals of Magna Carta are advanced. Do that not and Magna Carta is usurped. Do that not and you should be disciplined. Do that and you should be counted a good disciple. My experiences, once again, do not reveal a process that is adhering to the due process ideals of Magna Carta. Just the opposite, in fact. Braveheart's dying rebel (for a great cause) yell comes to mind.

  5. It is not a sign of the times that many Ind licensed attorneys (I am not) would fear writing what I wrote below, even if they had experiences to back it up. Let's take a minute to thank God for the brave Baron's who risked death by torture to tell the government that it was in the wrong. Today is a career ruination that whistleblowers risk. That is often brought on by denial of licenses or disciple for those who dare speak truth to power. Magna Carta says truth rules power, power too often claims that truth matters not, only Power. Fight such power for the good of our constitutional republics. If we lose them we have only bureaucratic tyranny to pass onto our children. Government attorneys, of all lawyers, should best realize this and work to see our patrimony preserved. I am now a government attorney (once again) in Kansas, and respecting the rule of law is my passion, first and foremost.

ADVERTISEMENT