Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Benko
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 116
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Ewing, injured in a 2007 rear-end collision, sought bodily injury damages and later pursued underinsured motorist benefits after settling against the tortfeasor's policy limits.
- Ewing filed suit for bodily injury within Indiana's two-year statute of limitations; a suit against Vannorman was filed August 11, 2009.
- Auto-Owners argued the policy’s time-limitation provision required filing within the statute of limitations and against Auto-Owners to preserve subrogation rights.
- Auto-Owners sought declaratory relief; the trial court denied Auto-Owners’ motion to strike supplemental evidence and granted partial summary judgment for Ewing, finding the provision vague and unenforceable.
- The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the provision is clear to an ordinary policyholder and that Ewing complied with the policy by filing against the tortfeasor within the deadline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of the time-limit provision | Benko/Ewing: provision is clear and enforces timely filing against tortfeasor for subrogation. | Auto-Owners: provision is vague/ambiguous and unenforceable. | Provision is clear; enforceable; summary judgment for Appellees. |
| Timeliness of evidence designation | Appellees properly supplemented with Benko deposition after motion for summary judgment; response referenced deposition. | Supplemental designation without leave violated rules and should be struck. | Trial court did not err in denying motion to strike. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Am. Alt. Ins. Corp., 866 N.E.2d 326 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (interpret policy terms from ordinary insured perspective)
- Allgood v. Meridian Sec. Ins. Co., 836 N.E.2d 243 (Ind. 2005) (ambiguities construed against the insurer)
- Spudich v. Northern Indiana Public Service Co., 745 N.E.2d 281 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (whether local rule allowed reply briefs; related to summary-judgment evidence)
- Scribner v. Gibbs, 953 N.E.2d 475 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (summary judgment standard and evidentiary review)
- Cox v. N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co., Inc., 848 N.E.2d 690 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (burden on party challenging grant of summary judgment)