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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT