Justices rule on underinsured motorist coverage case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has held that a tortfeasor’s vehicle was underinsured according to state statute because the benefit amount actually paid to a woman was less than the per-person limit of liability of the underinsurance endorsement of an insurance policy that applied to all the family members involved in the accident.

In Hannah Lakes v. Grange Mutual Casualty Company, No. 89S05-1109-CT-531, the justices unanimously agreed with the result the Indiana Court of Appeals reached, but for a different reason.

The case involves a severe auto accident in 2004 where Hannah Lakes and several family members were injured. The tortfeasor, James Isaacs, had an insurance policy that limited bodily injury liability to $25,000 per person and $50,000 per accident. Lakes’ sister, Anitra, was driving and had an insurance policy with underinsured motorist coverage for $50,000 per person and per accident. Their father, Jerry Lakes, also had UIM coverage for $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident.

After the Lakeses filed a state suit against Isaacs and Anitra Lakes’ carrier, Grange Mutual Casualty Company, Isaacs’ carrier paid its limit but Grange filed for summary judgment on the basis that the tortfeasor’s vehicle was not an underinsured vehicle as a matter of law because the per-accident limit of his policy was equal to the UIM per-accident limit of Anitra’s policy. The trial court granted Grange’s summary judgment motion, holding that Jerry Lakes’ $50,000 policy limit was equal to the UIM limit Anita Lakes had in her policy and that it didn’t matter that more than one family member was receiving benefits. The trial court also held Hannah Lakes couldn’t recover under her father’s insurance because that policy excluded coverage for property damage or bodily injury for family members inside the vehicle.

The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the tortfeasor’s vehicle was underinsured and that Hannah was entitled to recover up to $44,900 in UIM benefits under Anitra’s policy. The justices agreed, although for a different reason. They reaffirmed the decision from a decade ago in Corr v. American Family Insurance, 767 N.E.2d 535 (Ind. 2002).

The Supreme Court agreed with Grange and the trial court that the regime established by the intermediate appellate court may encourage “collusion” among insureds to structure their relationships in order to trigger Corr. But the justices disagreed with the proposed “fix” to that issue, adopting a different standard from another line of precedent.

Justice Frank Sullivan wrote for the court that when there are multiple claimants on these types of cases, courts should examine each claim individually and compare each with the per-person limits of applicable UIM coverage. The per-accident limits have no bearing on whether a vehicle is underinsured, Sullivan wrote, and the per-accident limits come into play only to limit the insurer’s liability.

The trial court judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit