ILNews

Justices rule on uninsured motorist statute

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In an issue of first impression, the Indiana Supreme Court had to decide whether an insurance company's uninsured motorist policy - which requires the bodily injury be sustained by an insured - violates the state's uninsured motorist statute and is unenforceable. The high court unanimously affirmed summary judgment Wednesday in favor of the insurance company, ruling Indiana Code clearly defines uninsured motorist coverage only for an insured's bodily injury.

In Maggie and Leonard Bush v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., No. 71S03-0810-CV-558, Maggie and Leonard Bush sued State Farm, their insurer, following the death of their adult son in a car accident in which he was a passenger. The Bushes claimed they sustained damages arising out of the conduct of an uninsured motorist and the insurer's failure to provide uninsured motorist benefits was a breach of the insurance contract. State Farm denied coverage because their son didn't live with his parents at the time of the accident and wasn't considered an "insured" under their policy.

The trial court granted summary judgment to State Farm because it ruled their son wasn't covered by the policy because he didn't meet the policy's definition of "relative" and wasn't an insured. The trial court didn't address the Bushes' argument that the company's policy violated the uninsured motorist statute, Indiana Code Section 27-7-5-2.

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, finding the exclusion of coverage for the son violated Indiana statute.

The Supreme Court examined the uninsured motorist statute, which clearly defines uninsured motorist coverage only for the "insured's" bodily injury, and ruled State Farm's policy is consistent with the statute by requiring the insured sustain bodily injury to trigger uninsured motorist coverage, wrote Justice Theodore Boehm.

In addition, the high court's ruling is supported by caselaw, including Ivey v. Massachusetts Bay Insurance Co., 569 N.E.2d 692, 693 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991), and Armstrong v. Federated Mutual Insurance Co., 785 N.E.2d 284, 293 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).

Bodily injury to an insured doesn't cover emotional distress, unless it arises out of bodily touching, which isn't the case here, so the Bushes can't recover under that theory.

Even though this is an issue of first impression here, other states have interpreted their statutes to require injury be sustained by an insured.

"In short, the clear weight of authority from other jurisdictions supports our conclusion that Indiana's uninsured motorist statute requires coverage only for bodily injuries sustained by an insured," wrote Justice Boehm.

Justice Boehm also noted that the couple, in their individual capacities, aren't "legally entitled to recover" damages for their son's death; an Adult Wrongful Death Act claim would have to be filed by the estate.

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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. A traditional parade of attorneys? Really Evansville? Y'all need to get out more. When is the traditional parade of notaries? Nurses? Sanitation workers? Pole dancers? I gotta wonder, do throngs of admiring citizens gather to laud these marching servants of the constitution? "Show us your billing records!!!" Hoping some video gets posted. Ours is not a narcissistic profession by any chance, is it? Nah .....

  2. My previous comment not an aside at court. I agree with smith. Good call. Just thought posting here a bit on the if it bleeds it leads side. Most attorneys need to think of last lines of story above.

  3. Hello everyone I'm Gina and I'm here for the exact same thing you are. I have the wonderful joy of waking up every morning to my heart being pulled out and sheer terror of what DCS is going to Throw at me and my family today.Let me start from the !bebeginning.My daughter lost all rights to her 3beautiful children due to Severe mental issues she no longer lives in our state and has cut all ties.DCS led her to belive that once she done signed over her right the babies would be with their family. We have faught screamed begged and anything else we could possibly due I hired a lawyer five grand down the drain.You know all I want is my babies home.I've done everything they have even asked me to do.Now their saying I can't see my grandchildren cause I'M on a prescription for paipain.I have a very rare blood disease it causes cellulitis a form of blood poisoning to stay dormant in my tissues and nervous system it also causes a ,blood clotting disorder.even with the two blood thinners I'm on I still Continue to develop them them also.DCS knows about my illness and still they refuse to let me see my grandchildren. I Love and miss them so much Please can anyone help Us my grandchildren and I they should be worrying about what toy there going to play with but instead there worrying about if there ever coming home again.THANK YOU DCS FOR ALL YOU'VE DONE. ( And if anyone at all has any ideals or knows who can help. Please contact (765)960~5096.only serious callers

  4. He must be a Rethuglican, for if from the other side of the aisle such acts would be merely personal and thus not something that attaches to his professional life. AND ... gotta love this ... oh, and on top of talking dirty on the phone, he also, as an aside, guess we should mention, might be important, not sure, but .... "In addition to these allegations, Keaton was accused of failing to file an appeal after he collected advance payment from a client seeking to challenge a ruling that the client repay benefits because of unreported income." rimshot

  5. I am not a fan of some of the 8.4 discipline we have seen for private conduct-- but this was so egregious and abusive and had so many points of bad conduct relates to the law and the lawyer's status as a lawyer that it is clearly a proper and just disbarment. A truly despicable account of bad acts showing unfit character to practice law. I applaud the outcome.

ADVERTISEMENT