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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT