ILNews

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.

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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT