Inman v. STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. INS. CO.
938 N.E.2d 1276
Ind. Ct. App.2010Background
- Inman was injured in a 2006 collision with another driver; the other driver’s insurer later paid the policy limit of $50,000 with State Farm consenting to the settlement.
- Inman amended her complaint against State Farm on January 22, 2009 seeking an additional $50,000 in underinsured motorist benefits up to her $100,000 policy limit.
- State Farm denied fault and denial of the $50,000 UM payment; the case proceeded to trial after the amendment.
- Inman offered to settle for the policy limits of $50,000 on June 14, 2009; State Farm did not respond and the case went to trial in March 2010.
- The jury awarded Inman $50,000 in March 2010; Inman then moved for prejudgment interest under I.C. 34-51-4-5 on January 22, 2009.
- The trial court summarily denied prejudgment interest; on appeal the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for calculation and payment of prejudgment interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prejudgment interest was properly denied | Inman argues TPIS requirements were met and interest should be awarded | State Farm asserts UM claim is not a tort action and interest should not exceed policy limits | TPIS applied; prejudgment interest awarded and remanded for calculation |
Key Cases Cited
- Woods v. Farmers Insurance of Columbus, Inc., 106 Ohio App.3d 389 (Ohio 1995) (UM/UIM context supports tort-based prejudgment interest)
- Torres v. Kansas City Fire and Marine Insurance Company, 849 P.2d 407 (Okla. 1993) (UM coverage provides relief for bodily injury; prejudgment interest linked to tort recovery)
- Ensley v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, 342 S.E.2d 567 (N.C. App. 1986) (uninsured motorist claim treated as tort claim for prejudgment interest)
- J.C. Penney Casualty Insurance Company v. Woodard, 380 S.E.2d 282 (Ga. App. 1989) (UM claim deemed tort claim for prejudgment interest purposes)
- Brown v. Southern Farm Bureau Insurance Company, 426 So.2d 684 (La. Ct. App. 1982) (UM/insurance claim treated as damages recovery for prejudgment interest)
- Potomac Insurance Company v. Howard, 813 S.W.2d 557 (Tex. Ct. App. 1991) (prejudgment interest promotes prompt compensation despite policy limits)
- Denham v. Bedford, 407 Mich. 517, 287 N.W.2d 168 (Mich. 1979) (insurer liable for prejudgment interest to encourage timely settlement within policy limits)
- Schimizzi v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Company, 928 F. Supp. 760 (N.D. Ind. 1996) (federal precedent supporting prejudgment interest against UM carrier)
- Cahoon v. Cummings, 734 N.E.2d 535 (Ind. 2000) (causal logic for bearing time-value of money on within-cap outcomes)