260.423.9551Call
215 East Berry Street
Fort Wayne, IN 46802

Underinsured Motorist Coverage Provision

Justice v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company (Ind. Ct. App. July 18, 2012)

In this case, the Court of Appeals interpreted an Underinsured Motorist (UIM) coverage provision stating that the policy limits of liability are reduced by “a payment made or amount payable because of bodily injury under any workers’ compensation or disability benefits law or any similar law.” The Plaintiff was involved in an accident and received $25,000 from the other driver’s insurance company and approximately $71,000 in worker’s compensation benefits. The Plaintiff had a UIM policy with $50,000 per-person limits. The Plaintiff filed a claim with his own UIM insurer, who denied the claim on the grounds that the UIM policy provision regarding worker’s compensation benefits reduced the policy limits to $0. The Court, relying entirely on the Supreme Court’s decision of Beam v. Wausau, 765 N.E.2d 524, 528 (Ind. 2002), held that summary judgment for the insurer was improper. Instead, the Court held that a jury must first determine liability and damages, and that the Plaintiff’s damages award would then be reduced by the $25,000 already received from the other driver’s insurer and then by the percentage of worker’s compensation benefits equal to the other driver’s comparative fault.

Although the Court in this case relied entirely on Beam, the Court did not note an important difference between the policy at issue in Beam and the policy in this case. In Beam, the policy stated:

  • Any amount payable for damages under this coverage shall be reduced by all sums paid or payable under any workers’ compensation, disability benefits or similar law.


The policy in this case stated:
The limits of liability of this coverage will be reduced by:
***

  • A payment made or amount payable because of bodily injury under any workers’ compensation or disability benefits law or any similar law.


The Beam court’s holding that the provision did not affect the policy limits was based on the following rationale:

  • In addition to referring to a reduction of “damages,” it is noteworthy that when the policy attempts to reduce limits, as opposed to damages, it chooses language that does precisely that. The language of the limitation in paragraph 2 provides, “The Limit of Insurance under this coverage shall be reduced by all sums paid or payable by or for anyone who is legally responsible, including all sums paid under the Coverage Form's LIABILITY COVERAGE.”

This limitation, by reducing the “limit of insurance,” unmistakably provides that any reduction is to be taken from the policy limit. Cf. Medley v. Am. Econ. Ins. Co., 654 N.E.2d 313, 316 (Ind.Ct.App.1995), trans. denied (holding the phrase “limit of liability will be reduced by all sums paid” was unambiguous and should be interpreted to provide for a reduction from policy limits). 765 N.E.2d at 531.

The policy in this case stated that the limits of liability were reduced by worker’s compensation payments. The Beam court’s rationale, therefore, seems to compel ta conclusion opposite that reached by the Court of Appeals in this case. It will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court accepts transfer.

Legal Disclaimer

The information contained in the Barrett McNagny LLP website is for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice on any subject matter. Furthermore, the information contained on our website may not reflect the most current legal developments. You should not act upon this information without consulting legal counsel.

Your transmission and receipt of information on the Barrett McNagny LLP website, or sending an e-mail to one of our attorneys or staff, will not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Barrett McNagny LLP. If you need legal advice and want to establish an attorney-client relationship with Barrett McNagny LLP, please contact one of our attorneys by telephone, email, or other means of communication, and allow the attorney to confirm that the firm does not represent other persons or entities involved in the matter and that the firm is willing to accept representation. Until such confirmation is provided by one of our attorneys, you should not transmit information to us that you consider confidential. If you do provide information to us, and no attorney-client relationship is established, the information will not be considered confidential or privileged, and our receipt of such information will not preclude us from representing another client in a matter adverse to you.

Any links to other websites are not intended to be referrals or endorsements of those sites.

An attorney-client relationship will NOT be formed merely by sending an email to Barrett McNagny, LLP or to any of its attorneys. Please do not send any information specific to your legal needs until you obtain approval from a Barrett McNagny, LLP attorney, as the content of such email will not be considered confidential or privileged. By sending us an email, you confirm your understanding of this notification. If you agree, you may use the e-mail links on this page to contact an attorney.
YesNo