ILNews

Injured woman’s insurance policy provisions are in direct conflict

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals Thursday agreed with a couple that their auto insurance policy is ambiguous because the two-year contractual limitation provision conflicts with another provision requiring full compliance with the contract.

Darliss Wert was injured in an accident Jan. 16, 2009, that was caused by Barbara Offill’s negligent driving. Darliss and Gary Wert’s attorney informed their insurer, Meridian Security Insurance Co., in March 2010 that the couple had an underinsured-motorist claim because Offill only had $100,000 of liability insurance. The Werts accepted the $100,000 settlement from Offill’s insurance company Jan. 18, 2011, but that money would not be available to the Werts until early February 2011. Meridian offered to settle the Werts underinsured-motorist claim for $5,000 in December 2011. The Werts filed their complaint seeking the benefits Feb. 24, 2012, more than two years after the accident.

The trial court granted summary judgment for the insurer, which argued it was entitled to summary judgment because the claim was filed after the expiration of the contractual limitation period.

The insurance contract in this case states that no legal action will be permitted against the insurance company unless there has been “full compliance with the terms of this policy.” The restriction is amended by only allowing a lawsuit to be brought against the insurance company as long as it is brought within two years of the date of the accident.

The two-year restriction is in direct conflict with the endorsement amending the requirements of the underinsured-motorist coverage, the appellate judges found, because Meridian will not pay underinsured-motorist benefits to its policyholder until the claim has either been resolved or settled with the underinsured motorist.

“Meridian’s policy prohibits the Werts from filing any lawsuit against it for an underinsured-motorist claim until the limits of Offill’s liability coverage have been exhausted. At the same time, Meridian attempts to prevent the Werts from filing more than two years after the date of the accident, potentially requiring them to file a lawsuit before they are in full compliance with the policy,” Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote. “Unless a policyholder settles with an underinsured motorist within two years of the collision, these provisions are in direct conflict and therefore ambiguous.”

The case, Darliss Wert and Gary Wert v. Meridian Security Insurance Company, 15A01-1306-CT-252, is remanded for further proceedings.
 

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. Is it possible to amend an order for child support due to false paternity?

  2. He did not have an "unlicensed handgun" in his pocket. Firearms are not licensed in Indiana. He apparently possessed a handgun without a license to carry, but it's not the handgun that is licensed (or registered).

  3. Once again, Indiana's legislature proves how friendly it is to monopolies. This latest bill by Hershman demonstrates the lengths Indiana's representatives are willing to go to put big business's (especially utilities') interests above those of everyday working people. Maassal argues that if the technology (solar) is so good, it will be able to compete on its own. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about the industries he represents. Instead, he wants to cut the small credit consumers get for using solar in order to "add a 'level of certainty'" to his industry. I haven't heard of or seen such a blatant money-grab by an industry since the days when our federal, state, and local governments were run by the railroad. Senator Hershman's constituents should remember this bill the next time he runs for office, and they should penalize him accordingly.

  4. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  5. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

ADVERTISEMENT