ILNews

Innocent co-insureds looking for protection

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Advocates in Indiana fighting for “innocent co-insured” protections say they will continue to ask the Legislature to create a new law.

Kerry Hyatt Blomquist, legal director for the Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence, said the problem of innocent co-insureds being denied coverage happens every day. However, the denials are seldom challenged because oftentimes the victims are “so used to being held down that sometimes they are not very good at sticking up for themselves.”

The term “innocent co-insured” refers to individuals who had nothing to do with an intentional act that caused a loss. Yet they are refused payment because they hold the insurance policy jointly with the person who is responsible for the damage.

crider-michael.jpg Crider

A complaint filed in May 2013 was thought to be a lawsuit that would set precedent in favor of the innocent co-insured. That case was settled, and another dispute involving an innocent co-insured indicated the courts were likely to find for the insurance companies.

Consequently, those championing the innocent co-insured issue have decided to try a legislative approach. One attempt has already failed in the Indiana General Assembly, but they say they’ll be back.

A bill introduced by Sen. Michael Crider during the 2013 session would have added a new section to state law prohibiting denial of coverage to an innocent co-insured. The measure did not get a hearing in committee. But Crider, R-Greenfield, is optimistic the Legislature will eventually act.

Advocates thought Womack v. Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Company, et al., 3:13-CV-00495, might be the case that would set precedent.

The plaintiff, Gwendolen Womack of LaPorte County, lost her home to a fire set by her estranged husband. Her insurance provider refused to cover the damages because, the insurance company said, the fire was an intentional act by one of the insured parties and the policy expressly did not cover intentional acts.

To the Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Womack was an innocent co-insured. Blomquist was able to enlist Angela Krahulik, partner at Ice Miller LLP, to take the case pro bono.

Krahulik and her colleagues, Elizabeth Timme and Sarah Murray, filed the complaint in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. The case was settled in January 2014 with the terms remaining confidential.

Allstate declined to comment about the Womack settlement or on its policy, in general, regarding innocent co-insureds.

Krahulik said she and her client feel very fortunate to have settled because another innocent co-insured lost his lawsuit in court. In Deeter v. Indiana Farmers Mutual Insurance Company, 43A04-1305-PL-229, the Indiana Court of Appeals in December affirmed summary judgment for the insurance company based on a plain reading of the insurance contract.

A petition to transfer the Deeter case is pending before the Indiana Supreme Court.

The decision, Krahulik said, indicates the innocent co-insured issue will likely have little traction in the courts. Blomquist says the Deeter case has key differences from Womack’s situation but the coalition is still turning to a legislative approach.

“We actually did think we could find the remedy from the courts,” Blomquist said.

Crider was not working with the coalition when he introduced his innocent co-insured legislation, Senate Bill 170. The former police officer authored the measure after a friend destroyed his ex-wife’s home as part of his suicide and the insurance company refused coverage, which left the ex-wife and children struggling.

“I’m big on fairness,” Crider said. “This just does not feel right to me.”

Provisions in Crider’s bill would have prohibited property and casualty insurers from denying or limiting payment on a claim from an innocent co-insured. Also, insurers could not refuse to issue or renew a policy with an innocent co-insured.

In addition, the bill allowed for stiff penalties – a fine between $25,000 and $50,000 for each act and a revocation of license – for insurance providers who were found to have engaged in unfair and deceptive acts.

When he introduced the bill, Crider said he encountered many people who were interested in the issue which leads him to believe, like Blomquist, that denials to innocent co-insureds are more common than many realize.

The Legislature, Crider said, will have to be educated on the issue, so getting a bill passed may take several tries.

“The cause needs to be addressed,” he said. “If there is somebody else who is a better champion of this issue, I am willing to step aside to get it done.”•

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. I like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT