Lakes v. Grange Mutual Casualty Co.
964 N.E.2d 796
Ind.2012Background
- Car accident occurred September 10, 2004 in Wayne County, Indiana; Anitra Lakes drove with LuAnn Lakes and Hannah Lakes as passengers, tortfeasor James Isaacs collided with Anitra's vehicle.
- Tortfeasor insured by Viking with $25,000 per person/$50,000 per accident; Anitra and other Lakes family members had Grange UIM policies; Anitra's policy had $50,000 per person and per accident; Jerry Lakes' Grange policy had $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident.
- Viking paid its $50,000 per-accident limit, allocated among Hannah, Anitra, LuAnn, Jerry, and Dustin Gavin; Hannah received $5,100, insufficient for her injuries.
- Grange moved for summary judgment arguing the tortfeasor’s vehicle was not underinsured because the tortfeasor’s per-accident limit equaled Anitra’s UIM per-accident limit; Jerry’s policy exclusion was also raised.
- Initially, four plaintiffs dismissed leaving Hannah as sole UIM claimant under Anitra’s Grange policy; trial court granted Grange’s summary judgment.
- Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, holding the tortfeasor’s vehicle was underinsured and Hannah could recover up to $44,900 under Anitra’s UIM; Supreme Court granted transfer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the tortfeasor's vehicle underinsured under I.C. 27-7-5-4(b)? | Lakes: Corr approach; only amount available to Hannah from tortfeasor's policy compared to Hannah's UIM per-person limit. | Grange: Sanders/Graham approach; multiple claimants require limits-to-limits comparison. | Underinsured; Hannah entitled to UIM benefits under Anitra's policy. |
| Does I.C. 27-7-5-2 require UIM coverage of $50,000 per person for Anitra's policy? | Advances Corr-based reasoning; UIM must provide full recovery up to $50k per person. | Grange: policy terms control; this issue not decided because policy provides $50k per person and case is remanded. | Court declines to decide; policy provides $50,000 per person; issue unresolved on review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Corr v. American Family Insurance, 767 N.E.2d 535 (Ind. 2002) (rejected strict limits-to-limits; comparison based on amount available versus UIM limits)
- Corr v. Schultz, 743 N.E.2d 1194 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) (adopted Corr approach to available payment vs. UIM limits)
- Allstate Insurance Co. v. Sanders, 644 N.E.2d 884 (Ind.Ct.App.1994) (limits-to-limits comparison in mult-claimant context; focus on position if tortfeasor had equal liability limits)
- Grange Insurance Co. v. Graham, 843 N.E.2d 597 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (multi-claimant approach; reaffirms Sanders lineage)
- United National Insurance Co. v. DePrizio, 705 N.E.2d 455 (Ind.1999) (UIM is mandatory, full-recovery, remedial; liberal construction for insured)
- Petty (Progressive Halcyon Ins. Co. v. Petty), 883 N.E.2d 854 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (collusion concern; unilateral triggering of Corr)
- Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Eakle, 869 N.E.2d 1244 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (applies Sanders/Griffin lineage to preclude recovery when multiple claimants seek UIM)