ILNews

Insurer must provide underinsured coverage

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An insurance policy that doesn't provide uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage to all insureds is contrary to public policy based on Indiana statute, affirmed the Indiana Court of Appeals. Based on the statute, the insurance company is required to provide $500,000 in underinsured motorist coverage to a man injured while driving a company-provided motorcycle.

In Joseph Balagtas and Federated Mutual Insurance Co. v. Harry Joe Bishop, No. 79A02-0903-CV-239, Federated Mutual Insurance appealed the trial court order denying its motion for summary judgment and granting Harry Bishop's motion for summary judgment in his claim for underinsured motorist coverage. Bishop is an employee of Eagle Motors, who is insured through Federated. Eagle provided Bishop a demo motorcycle for business and personal use with full coverage insurance. While he was driving it during personal use, he was hit by Joseph Balagtas and injured. Bishop's damages exceeded Balagtas' policy limits so he sought payment under the UIM of Eagle's policy. Federated claimed he wasn't covered because Eagle elected to only have UM/UIM coverage for directors, officers, partners, or owners of the named insured and family members who qualify as insureds. Bishop didn't fit any of those titles.

The issue for the appellate court to decide was if Eagle could elect limits for UM/UIM coverage for some insureds and decline the same coverage for other insureds. Indiana Code Section 27-7-5-2 says an insurer is required to make available UM and UIM coverage in limits at least equal to a policy's bodily injury limits of liability. Federated argued that statute didn't apply to them because I.C. Section 27-7-5-1.5 states an insurer is not required to make available UM/UIM coverage in connection with the issuance of a commercial vehicle policy. The appellate court rejected that argument and held Federated intended to comply with I.C. Section 27-7-5-2 based on its policy language. In a footnote, Judge James Kirsch noted that I.C. Section 27-7-5-1.5 has been repealed effective Jan. 1, 2010.

Under Indiana Code Section 27-7-5-2(b), the insured may reject on behalf of all named insureds and other insureds either the UM or UIM coverage provided or both the UM and UIM coverage. The statute doesn't say that the named insured may reject coverage for some, but not all of the named insureds, so election or rejection of coverage must apply to everyone, wrote Judge Kirsch.

"Indiana Code section 27-7-5-2 is a mandatory coverage, full-recovery, remedial statute," he wrote. "Insurers operating in Indiana are required to set minimum standards of protection that the legislature has deemed acceptable. We will not approve any clause, exception, or exclusion that attempts to subvert or narrow the intent of the legislature. Any language in an insurance policy that dilutes statutory protections is contrary to public policy."

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT