ILNews

Court rules on underinsured motorists coverage

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Keywords
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.
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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT