Court rules on underinsured motorists coverage

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today on when injured claimants in an automobile accident can seek to recover more money under a single Uninsured and Underinsured Motorist policy.

In Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. David Eakle, et al., the court used previous cases Allstate Ins Co v. Sanders 644 N.E.2d 884, 887 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) and Grange Ins. Co v. Graham 843 N.E.2d 597, 599 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) to determine the trial court erred in denying Auto-Owners judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment and ruling that the Eakles receive summary judgment.

In 2003, David Eakle and his parents, Helen and Leon, were seriously injured in an automobile accident when Lavern Weddel failed to stop at a red light in Indianapolis. Weddel died as a result of the accident. The Eakles, along with David's wife, Melissa, filed a claim with Weddel's insurer, Indiana Insurance Co. and received the accident policy limit of $500,000. Helen received $245,000, Leon received $160,000; David received $90,000, and Melissa was awarded $5,000.

The Eakles' vehicle was insured through Auto-Owners, which provided uninsured and underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage of $500,000 per person and $500,000 per accident. The Eakles filed a claim with Auto-Owners for coverage payments under their UIM endorsement of the policy, which Auto-Owners denied, saying Weddel's vehicle was not underinsured.

The Eakles then brought a lawsuit against Auto-Owners for breach of contract and seeking a declaratory judgment that they were entitled to the compensation under the UIM claims with their insurance policy. The trial court ruled in favor of the Eakles.

The Court of Appeals examines the core issue of the case - whether Weddel's vehicle was underinsured. Auto-Owners wants the court to compare the per accident limit of Weddel's bodily injury liability policy, which was $500,000, to the per accident limit of the Eakles' UIM policy, which is also $500,000. The Eakles argue the court should compare the per person limit of each Eakle's UIM coverage, which is $500,000, to the amount actually available for payment to each Eakle under the agreement with Weddel's insurer, which does not total $500,000 for each injured party.

The opinion, authored by Judge Darden with Judges Sharpnack and Robb concurring, finds that Weddel's vehicle was not underinsured, using Graham and Sanders as guides because those cases also involved multiple injured claimants seeking to recover under a single UIM policy.

Darden wrote, "The designated evidence demonstrates that the amount of $500,000 paid to the Eakles by tortfeasor-Weddel's insurance was not less than, but equivalent to the UIM limits available to the Eakles for a multiple person accident in the amount of $500,000.00 under their Auto-Owners policy."

The court found that Weddel's vehicle was not underinsured and that the trial court erred in denying Auto-Owners' motion for judgment on the pleadings and its alternative motion for summary judgment. The COA reversed the trial court's decision and remanded with instruction that the trial court grant summary judgment in favor of Auto-Owners.

Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.