Masten v. Amco Insurance Co., 2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 1622

In 2006, Kerwin Masten rear-ended after avoiding a collision with Herbert Allison Jr.; Allison was uninsured.
Hanson, with a $100,000 per person liability policy, caused the initial injury to Kerwin; Hanson’s car may have been pushed by Robinson’s vehicle.
Robinson carried a $25,000 per person liability policy; Hanson settled with Plaintiffs for $100,000.
Plaintiffs and AMCO insured them for up to $100,000 per person and $300,000 per occurrence for uninsured/underinsured motorists.
Plaintiffs settled with Hanson for $100,000 and later with Robinson for $25,000; AMCO sought summary judgment arguing the Hanson settlement precluded UM/UIM recovery.
Trial court granted AMCO summary judgment; Plaintiffs appeal seeking to obtain underinsured motorist coverage under their AMCO policy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred in denying UM/UIM coverage as a matter of law.	Masten argues coverage exists under the underinsured motorist endorsement.	AMCO contends the Hanson settlement creates a full set-off under the policy terms.	No; coverage is available; remand for further proceedings.

Bradshaw v. Chandler, 916 N.E.2d 163 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (ambiguity interpreted against insurer; policy construed as a whole)
United Nat'l Ins. Co. v. DePrizio, 705 N.E.2d 455 (Ind. 1999) (underinsured coverage remedial; liberal construction in favor of insured)
Am. Economy Ins. Co. v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co., 605 N.E.2d 162 (Ind. 1992) (endorsement structure clarifies limit-of-liability separation)
Grain Dealers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wuethrich, 716 N.E.2d 596 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (set-off scope under uninsured/underinsured statute)
Estate of Kinser v. Indiana Ins. Co., 950 N.E.2d 23 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (policy interpretation requires holistic view of endorsements)
Corr v. Am. Family Ins., 767 N.E.2d 535 (Ind. 2002) (underinsured coverage purpose to compensate insured)