William Loomis v. ACE American Insurance Company, 244 N.E.3d 908

William Loomis was injured in a truck accident while driving for XPO Logistics, whose truck was registered in Indiana and garaged in New York.
Loomis recovered from the other driver’s insurance and then sought underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage from ACE American Insurance, XPO’s insurer.
ACE’s policy provided $7 million in liability coverage but only in excess of a $3 million retained limit, and excluded UIM coverage in Indiana or New York; XPO did not specifically reject Indiana or New York UIM coverage in writing.
Loomis sued ACE for failing to offer UIM coverage; litigation ensued in federal court, which certified two questions to the Indiana Supreme Court on the policy’s exemption from UIM requirements and the enforceability of the retained limit.
The main legal issues centered on whether a policy excess of a retained limit is a “commercial excess liability policy” exempt from mandatory UIM coverage, and, if not, whether UIM coverage applies only after the $3 million retained limit is exhausted.

Issue	Loomis's Argument	ACE's Argument	Held
Is a policy excess to a retained limit a "commercial excess liability policy" exempt from mandatory UIM coverage under Indiana law?	"Excess liability policy" means a policy that sits over a primary insurance policy, not a retained limit; ambiguity should favor insured.	"Excess liability policy" includes policies excess to either a retained limit or a primary insurance policy.	No: ambiguity in the statute is construed in favor of the insured; the policy is not exempt.
If not exempt, is ACE's obligation to provide UIM coverage subject to exhaustion of the $3 million retained limit?	"Limits of liability" refers to the numerical policy limit, so UIM coverage is not subject to the retained limit; ambiguity should favor insured.	The $3 million retained limit is a valid condition precedent to coverage, and so must be met before ACE’s UIM obligation arises.	No: ambiguity regarding "limits of liability" is interpreted in the insured's favor; UIM coverage is not subject to the retained limit.

United Nat’l Ins. v. DePrizio, 705 N.E.2d 455 (Ind. 1999) (UM/UIM statutes are remedial, must be liberally construed in favor of insured)
City of Gary v. Allstate Ins. Co., 612 N.E.2d 115 (Ind. 1993) (self-insured entities are not “insurers” under UM/UIM statute)
Monroe Guar. Ins. Co. v. Langreck, 816 N.E.2d 485 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (distinctions between excess and primary liability policies; excess policy can be over primary insurance or retained limit)
Cinergy Corp. v. Associated Elec. & Gas Ins. Servs., Ltd., 865 N.E.2d 571 (Ind. 2007) (excess liability coverage over a self-insured retention)
Justice v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins., 4 N.E.3d 1171 (Ind. 2014) (policy language controls unless inconsistent with mandatory coverage statutes)
Lakes v. Grange Mut. Cas., 964 N.E.2d 796 (Ind. 2012) (ambiguities in insurance statutes resolved in favor of insured)