113 N.E.3d 229
Ind. Ct. App.2018Background
- On Feb. 18, 2016, Gregory Smith let Nolan Clayton drive Smith’s pickup; Clayton lost control, single-vehicle crash injured Smith; no other vehicles involved.
- Progressive insured Smith; it paid $10,937.71 for vehicle damage (collision) and $5,000 in medical payments under Smith’s policy.
- Smith sued Clayton (insured by Allstate), and Allstate tendered/settled Smith’s bodily-injury claim for policy limits.
- Progressive filed a declaratory-judgment action seeking a ruling that Smith’s UM (uninsured/underinsured motorist) coverage did not apply and that it had no duty to indemnify Clayton.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Smith, finding Smith entitled to UM benefits; Progressive appealed.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding Smith’s vehicle was a “covered auto” excluded from the policy’s UM definition and that available liability insurance (Allstate’s tender) precluded UM recovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith may recover UM benefits under his Progressive policy for injuries from a single-vehicle accident in his insured truck when the tortfeasor’s liability insurer paid policy limits | Smith: The policy’s exclusion language plus claims correspondence create an ambiguity or denial that triggers UM coverage for his bodily injury | Progressive: Policy unambiguously excludes the insured’s own vehicle from the definition of "uninsured motor vehicle," Progressive paid collision and medical payments, and the tortfeasor’s insurer’s tender satisfied the Financial Responsibility Act so UM is not triggered | Court: Reversed trial court; UM coverage not available because Smith’s truck is a covered auto excluded from UM and liability coverage was available/paid by the tortfeasor’s insurer |
Key Cases Cited
- State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. v. Leybman, 777 N.E.2d 763 (Ind. Ct. App.) (offer/tender of tortfeasor’s policy limits can satisfy Financial Responsibility Act and preclude UM recovery)
- Matteson v. Citizens Ins. Co. of Am., 844 N.E.2d 188 (Ind. Ct. App.) (payment of insurer’s policy limits indicates insurance was available and UM is not triggered)
- Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Frierson, 49 N.E.3d 1075 (Ind. Ct. App.) (unambiguous policy terms limiting coverage must be enforced)
- Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Evansville Vanderburgh Pub. Library, 860 N.E.2d 636 (Ind. Ct. App.) (an exception to an exclusion cannot create coverage; exclusions limit, not expand, the insuring clause)