ILNews

Justices order further proceedings in underinsured motorist coverage case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Because issues of material fact remain regarding the applicable level of underinsured motorist coverage provided by a policy on a semi-tractor trailer, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed summary judgment for the insurance company.

Allen County resident Derek Asklar was driving a semi on behalf of Werner Transportation Services Inc., a Georgia company, when he was injured in West Virginia when his truck was hit by another semi-truck. Werner leased Asklar’s truck from a South Bend company and insured it under a policy from Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Co.  The insurer provided $5 million liability coverage for his truck, but claimed the policy only included $75,000 in underinsured motorist coverage.

The trial court applied Georgia law, which allows an insured to choose to purchase this type of coverage in a lower amount than the liability policy limit. The trial court found the procurement and endorsement of the policy itself was sufficient evidence that Werner Transportation, through its president, John Werner, made that affirmative choice. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Empire.

The justices agreed with the Indiana Court of Appeals that Indiana law does apply because any vehicle registered and principally garaged in Indiana, as was Asklar’s rig, must comply with requirements under I.C. 27-7-5-2. But the justices disagreed with the lower appeals court’s decision to affirm the trial court.

Empire designated four documents that purportedly show Werner’s intent, as to both uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage, to reject the default $5 million coverage limit and instead purchase coverage only in the amount of $75,000.  

“Although both the trial court and our Court of Appeals found these rejections were sufficient as a matter of law to demonstrate Werner waived the higher liability limit for both uninsured and underinsured motorist insurance, we cannot agree,” Justice Mark Massa wrote. “None of the forms identify the policy by number, and none mention ‘underinsured’ coverage, instead referring only to the liability limit of the ‘uninsured’ coverage. On the other hand, there is policy language that could be read to indicate the waivers use the term ‘uninsured’ to include both types of coverage. … In light of these conflicting facts, we conclude the issue of the waivers’ validity is unsuitable for summary judgment and best left to the fact-finder.”

The case is Derek Asklar and Pauline Asklar v. David Gilb, Paul Garrett Smith d/b/a P.H. One Trucking, Empire Fire & Marine Insurance Co. d/b/a Zurich Northland Insurance Co., Travelers Indemnity Co. of America, 02S03-1305-CT-332.
 

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 was looking through some of your blog posts on this internet site and I conceive this web site is rattling informative ! Keep on posting . dfkcfdkdgbekdffe

  2. Don't believe me, listen to Pacino: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6bC9w9cH-M

  3. Law school is social control the goal to produce a social product. As such it began after the Revolution and has nearly ruined us to this day: "“Scarcely any political question arises in the United States which is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question. Hence all parties are obliged to borrow, in their daily controversies, the ideas, and even the language, peculiar to judicial proceedings. As most public men [i.e., politicians] are, or have been, legal practitioners, they introduce the customs and technicalities of their profession into the management of public affairs. The jury extends this habitude to all classes. The language of the law thus becomes, in some measure, a vulgar tongue; the spirit of the law, which is produced in the schools and courts of justice, gradually penetrates beyond their walls into the bosom of society, where it descends to the lowest classes, so that at last the whole people contract the habits and the tastes of the judicial magistrate.” ? Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

  4. Attorney? Really? Or is it former attorney? Status with the Ind St Ct? Status with federal court, with SCOTUS? This is a legal newspaper, or should I look elsewhere?

  5. Once again Indiana has not only shown what little respect it has for animals, but how little respect it has for the welfare of the citizens of the state. Dumping manure in a pond will most certainly pollute the environment and ground water. Who thought of this spiffy plan? No doubt the livestock industry. So all the citizens of Indiana have to suffer pollution for the gain of a few livestock producers who are only concerned about their own profits at the expense of everyone else who lives in this State. Shame on the Environmental Rules Board!

ADVERTISEMENT