Erie Insurance Exchange v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 24A-CT-02747

Lawrence Ricketts, a mechanic, was injured while test-driving a customer’s (Tinsley) truck that had been brought to his repair shop (Automotive Specialists LLC); the accident involved an underinsured driver (Reiter).
Ricketts sought damages first from the at-fault driver’s insurer (Progressive), then from underinsured motorist coverage provided by his personal insurer (State Farm) and the truck owner’s insurer (Erie).
The Automotive Specialists' insurance policy (Auto-Owners) did not provide underinsured motorist coverage and was dismissed from the case.
Both Erie and State Farm believed the other’s policy should provide primary coverage, resulting in both parties filing for partial summary judgment to clarify priority.
The trial court awarded partial summary judgment to State Farm, holding that Erie’s policy was primary and State Farm’s excess; Erie appealed.
The main legal question became which of the two underinsured motorist policies must pay first when the accident vehicle was controlled by a bailee (Ricketts), triggering Indiana’s Bailee Coverage Statute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Which insurer provides primary underinsured motorist coverage: the bailee’s (Ricketts/State Farm) or the owner’s (Tinsley/Erie)?	Erie: Both policy clauses conflict; Bailee Coverage Statute makes bailee’s insurance (State Farm) primary.	State Farm: Policy is explicitly excess; Erie’s policy should be primary under its own language and standard rules.	State Farm’s policy is primary under the Bailee Coverage Statute; Erie’s is excess.
Whether statutory priority rules override conflicting “other insurance” clauses.	Erie: Statute should govern when policies are identical in effect.	State Farm: Policy language should control since only State Farm’s uses explicit "excess" language.	Statute controls; courts should not parse similar "other insurance" clauses, but follow the Bailee Coverage Statute.
Whether the policies in question are true excess or umbrella policies.	Erie: Neither policy is a true excess/umbrella policy; both are primary with "other insurance" clauses.	State Farm: Its own policy is excess, Erie’s is primary by default.	Neither policy is a true excess/umbrella; both are primary and subject to statutory priority.
Whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment for State Farm.	Erie: Trial court erred by not applying the statutory rule making bailee’s coverage primary.	State Farm: Trial court was correct; Erie’s insurance should be primary.	Trial court reversed; summary judgment ordered for Erie.

Indiana Department of Insurance v. Doe, 247 N.E.3d 1204 (Ind. 2024) (review standard for summary judgment in insurance matters)
Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Precedent Companies, LLC., 782 N.E.2d 470 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (summary judgment rules when interpretation of insurance contracts is required)
Lee v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 121 N.E.3d 639 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (liberal construction of underinsured motorist statutes, favoring the insured)
Old Republic Insurance Co. v. RLI Insurance Co., 887 N.E.2d 1003 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (statutory tie-breaker approach to conflicting insurance coverage)
Central Mutual Insurance Co. v. Motorists Mutual Insurance Co., 23 N.E.3d 18 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (statutory rules governing the priority of insurance policies covering the same loss)