ILNews

Judges differ on insurance coverage

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A panel of Indiana Court of Appeals judges disagreed about whether a school bus driver who also worked as an independent farmer over the summer should be covered by the school corporation's insurance following a car accident while hauling grain. Judge Melissa May, dissenting from the majority's affirmation of the denial of coverage for the bus driver's accident, worried the majority's interpretation of Exclusion 33 in his insurance policy would require any school employee who may be eligible for workers' compensation coverage to buy it or risk losing insurance benefits provided by the school corporation's health plan.

In Mikel A. Schilling v. Huntington County Community School Corp., et al., No. 35A02-0803-CV-191, Huntington County Community School Corp., Huntington County Community School Corporation Employee Benefit Trust, and American Health Care Partnership Inc., were awarded summary judgment on Mikel Schilling's claims that his health plan pay for his injuries from the accident. Judges Edward Najam and Margret Robb interpreted Exclusion 33 of Schilling's plan through the school corporation to exclude coverage of injuries that would be covered by Indiana's Workers' Compensation Act, regardless of whether workers' compensation was actually obtained by the insured.

Schilling, as an independent farmer, didn't purchase workers' compensation and argued the exclusion needed to state affirmative steps he had to take to purchase the coverage. The majority disagreed, finding the exclusion plainly informed Schilling the plan wouldn't cover injuries coverable by workers' compensation, regardless of whether it had been purchased, wrote Judge Najam.

In Judge May's dissent, she wrote the exclusion implies the purchaser of the workers' compensation would be a school employee, but most aren't self-employed in addition to their school employment. Surely a policy meant to cover a typical school system employee wouldn't exclude coverage just because that typical employee hadn't bought workers' compensation coverage, Judge May wrote. As such, she declined to interpret the exclusion to presume an employee would lose health coverage for any injury covered by workers' compensation that the employee might have been able to buy. Judge May would reverse summary judgment in favor of the school corporation and remand.

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. Contact Lea Shelemey attorney in porter county Indiana. She just helped us win our case...she is awesome...

  2. We won!!!! It was a long expensive battle but we did it. I just wanted people to know it is possible. And if someone can point me I. The right direction to help change the way the courts look as grandparents as only grandparents. The courts assume the parent does what is in the best interest of the child...and the court is wrong. A lot of the time it is spite and vindictiveness that separates grandparents and grandchildren. It should not have been this long and hard and expensive...Something needs to change...

  3. Typo on # of Indiana counties

  4. The Supreme Court is very proud that they are Giving a billion dollar public company from Texas who owns Odyssey a statewide monopoly which consultants have said is not unnecessary but worse they have already cost Hoosiers well over $100 MILLION, costing tens of millions every year and Odyssey is still not connected statewide which is in violation of state law. The Supreme Court is using taxpayer money and Odyssey to compete against a Hoosier company who has the only system in Indiana that is connected statewide and still has 40 of the 82 counties despite the massive spending and unnecessary attacks

  5. Here's a recent resource regarding steps that should be taken for removal from the IN sex offender registry. I haven't found anything as comprehensive as of yet. Hopefully this is helpful - http://www.chjrlaw.com/removal-indiana-sex-offender-registry/

ADVERTISEMENT