Erie Indemnity Company, as Attorney-in-Fact for the Subscribers at Erie Insurance Exchange v. Estate of Brian L. Harris, by Its Special Representative, Laura Harris, and Anna Marie Harris, 99 N.E.3d 625

Erie issued a commercial auto policy (Pioneer Commercial Auto Policy) to Formco; the 2010 policy included an Uninsured/Underinsured Motorists (UM) Endorsement. Formco was the named insured; no other named insureds appeared on the Declarations.
Formco owned a 2004 Toyota pickup that employee Brian Harris regularly drove for personal and business use; Harris was listed in underwriting/application materials as a driver but was not a named insured in the policy.
On August 6, 2010, Harris was killed while riding his personal lawnmower by an uninsured motorist. The Estate claimed uninsured motorist bodily injury (UMBI) benefits under the Policy.
Erie denied coverage; the Estate sued for a declaratory judgment and summary judgment. The trial court and Court of Appeals found the phrase “others we protect” ambiguous and ruled for the Estate.
The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to decide whether the UM Endorsement term “others we protect” is ambiguous and, if not, whether Harris fell within its plain meaning.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the phrase “others we protect” is ambiguous	Harris’s Estate: phrase is susceptible to multiple reasonable meanings and must be construed in favor of the insured	Erie: phrase is unambiguous because the immediately following OTHERS WE PROTECT section defines/explains who is covered	Held: Not ambiguous; only one reasonable interpretation exists — the OTHERS WE PROTECT section gives the plain meaning
Whether policy drafting or external underwriting documents make Harris an insured under “others we protect”	Estate: underwriting/app files listing Harris as a driver show he was a person the policy intended to protect	Erie: listing a driver in application/underwriting does not convert that person into an insured for UM coverage absent policy language	Held: Extrinsic underwriting/application materials do not alter the policy’s plain terms; Harris was not covered
Whether Harris qualified under the four categories in OTHERS WE PROTECT	Estate: argues broad reading includes scheduled drivers like Harris	Erie: categories are limited (e.g., relatives if you are an individual; occupants of covered autos; persons entitled to recover for injury to covered persons) and do not include a person on a lawnmower	Held: Harris did not fit any listed category (not "you," not occupying an insured auto, not recovering for another's injury); no coverage

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Jakubowicz, 56 N.E.3d 617 (Ind. 2016) (insurance policies are contracts to be construed like other contracts)
Holiday Hosp. Franchising, Inc. v. AMCO Ins. Co., 983 N.E.2d 574 (Ind. 2013) (clear policy language gets its plain meaning; courts only construe ambiguous terms)
Wagner v. Yates, 912 N.E.2d 805 (Ind. 2009) (failure to define a term does not automatically render it ambiguous)
Allgood v. Meridian Sec. Ins. Co., 836 N.E.2d 243 (Ind. 2005) (ambiguous policy language judged from perspective of ordinary policyholder)
Puryear v. Progressive N. Ins. Co., 790 N.E.2d 138 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (disagreement between parties does not alone create ambiguity)
Little v. Progressive Ins., 783 N.E.2d 307 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (listing a person as a driver in underwriting does not make them a named insured for UM coverage)
Millspaugh v. Ross, 645 N.E.2d 14 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (regular use/listing as principal driver does not transform driver into an insured absent policy language)