Indiana Law Summaries
Automobile Insurance
I.C. § 9-25-2-3
Financial Responsibility
Requires insurance in the following amounts:
(1) $25,000.00 per person;
(2) $50,000.00 per accident; and
(3) $10,000.00 property coverage per accident.
I.C. § 27-7-5-2(a)
UM/UIM Coverage
Requires insurers to offer UM/UIM coverage with every bodily injury liability policy of insurance in an amount not less than $50,000.00 or the limit of liability insurance, whichever is greater and which can only be rejected in writing.
I.C. § 27-7-5-4(a)
Uninsured Motor Vehicles
An uninsured motor vehicle is one without liability insurance or not otherwise compliant with the financial responsibility requirements of such laws of this or another state or where the insurer is unable to make payments to the limit of liability due to insolvency.
I.C. § 27-7-5-4(b)
Underinsured Motor Vehicles
An underinsured motor vehicle is one where the limits of coverage available for payment to the insured under all bodily injury liability policies covering persons liable to the insured are less than the limits of the insured’s underinsured motorist coverage.
I.C. § 27-7-6-2
Definitions
This statute contains the definitions for “automobile insurance policy”, and “automobile liability coverage”.
Negligence, Other Torts and Contribution
I.C. § 7.1-5-10-15.5
Civil Liability for Furnishing Alcohol
A person who furnishes alcohol is not liable for civil action for damages caused by the intoxicated person, unless they actually knew the person was visibly intoxicated, and the intoxication of the person was the proximate cause of the injury or damage.
If a person, who is 21, suffers an injury or death, caused by voluntary intoxication, the person, the person’s heirs, dependants or representative may not make a claim against the person who furnished the alcohol.
I.C. § 12-15-29-4.5
Medicaid Claim
Insurer must accept a Medicaid claim for a Medicaid recipient for three years from the date of service. An insurer cannot deny a Medicaid claim solely based on the date of submission, type or format of the claim, method of submission or failure to provide proper documentation.
Insurer cannot deny a Medicaid claim solely due to lack of prior authorization. Insurer will conduct the prior authorization retrospectively when prior authorization is necessary. Insurer must adjudicate such claim as if it received prior authorization.
I.C. § 14-22-10-2.5
Entry onto Premises of Another
A person, who enters a premise, without permission or monetary compensation, for the purposes of hunting or fishing, does not have an assurance that the premise is safe.
The owner of a premise does not assume responsibility or incur liability for damage or injury caused by others persons using the premises.
I.C. § 34-20-1-1
Products Liability Actions
The article governs all actions that are brought by a user or consumer against a manufacturer or seller for physical harm caused by a product regardless of the substantive legal theory or theories upon which the action is brought.
I.C. § 34-20-2-1
Product Liability
Liability exists for an unreasonably dangerous or defective product if the seller should reasonably foresee the consumer or class of persons being exposed to the harm caused by the defective condition, the seller is engaged in the business of selling the product and the product reaches the user or consumer without substantial alteration.
I.C. § 34-20-2-2
Product Liability
An action can be maintained even though reasonable care was used in the manufacture and preparation of the product and there is no privity of contract. However, reasonable care is a defense to design defect claims and those for failure to provide adequate warnings.
I.C. § 34-20-2-3
Strict Product Liability
An action for strict product liability for an unreasonably dangerous defective condition may only be brought against the manufacturer.
I.C. § 34-20-2-4
Product Manufacturers
If a court cannot gain jurisdiction over a manufacturer, then the manufacturer’s principal distributor or seller over whom the court can gain jurisdiction will be deemed the manufacturer of the product.
I.C. § 34-20-3-1
Product Liability
A product liability action in negligence or strict liability must be commenced within two years from the cause of action or within ten years after the delivery to the initial user or customer. If the cause of action happens after eight years but before ten years of the date of delivery, the action may be commenced within two years after the cause of action.
I.C. § 34-20-9-1
Indemnity in Product Liability Actions
A party held liable may seek indemnity from other persons whose actual fault caused the product to be defective.
I.C. § 34-23-1-1
Wrongful Death
Requires an action in wrongful death to be maintained by the personal representative of the decedent and to have been able to have been prosecuted by the decedent had the decedent lived.
I.C. § 34-23-1-2(d)
Limitation of Certain Wrongful Death Damages
The type of damages in subsection (c)(3)(A) (reasonable medical, hospital, funeral and burial expenses) are limited to $300,000.00.
I.C. § 34-31-4-1
Parental Liability
A parent is liable for no more than $5,000.00 in actual damages from damage cause by their child, if the parent has custody and the child is living with the parent.
I.C. § 34-44-1-3
Payments of Awards
Proof of payments may be considered by trier of fact for determining the amount of any award and for any court review of awards considered excessive.
I.C. § 34-51-2-2
Comparative Fault of Governmental Subdivisions
Contributory negligence remains a complete defense to claims under the Tort Claims Act.
I.C. § 34-51-2-5
Comparative Fault Set-Off
Contributory fault of a claimant acts to proportionately reduce the total damages for an injury by the claimant’s contributory fault.
I.C. § 34-51-2-6
Contributory Negligence as Complete Defense
Contributory negligence is a complete defense if a claimant’s contributory fault is greater than the fault of all other persons whose fault proximately contributed to the claimant’s damages.
I.C. § 34-51-2-10
Intentional Torts
A plaintiff may recover one-hundred percent of the compensatory damages in a civil action for an intentional tort from a defendant who was convicted after a prosecution based on the same evidence.
I.C. § 34-51-2-12
Contribution and Indemnity
In an action under this chapter, there is no right of contribution among tortfeasors. The right of indemnity is unaffected by this section.
I.C. § 34-51-2-14
Nonparty Defense
In an action based on fault, a defendant may assert that the damages of the claimant were caused in full or in part by a nonparty.
I.C. § 34-51-2-15
Nonparty Defense
The burden of proving a nonparty defense is upon the defendant who must affirmatively plead the defense.
I.C. § 34-51-2-16
Nonparty Defense
A nonparty defense must be pled if known. Nonparty defenses which become known after the filing of the answer must be raised with reasonable promptness. If the summons and complaint were served more than one hundred fifty (150) days prior to the expiration of the claimant’s statute of limitations, nonparty defenses must be pled no later than forty-five (45) days prior to the expiration of that limitation of action; however, the trial court may alter these time limits to allow defendants a reasonable opportunity to discover the existence of a nonparty defense and allow the claimant a reasonable opportunity to add the nonparty as an additional defendant prior to the expiration of the period of limitations applicable to the claim.
Subrogation
I.C. § 27-7-5-6(a)
Subrogation for UM/UIM Payments
Provides that payment of UM/UIM coverage for damages operates to subrogate the insurer to any cause of action in tort which payee may have.
I.C. § 27-7-5-6(b)
Exception to the Right of Subrogation for UIM Payments
The insurer providing underinsured motorist coverage does not have the right of subrogation if it is informed of a bona fide offer of settlement which includes a certification of the liability coverage limits of the underinsured motorist and the insurer fails to advance payment in at least the amount of the offer within thirty (30) days.
I.C. § 34-51-2-19
Lien Reduction
Subrogation claims or other liens or claims arising out of the payment of medical expenses or other benefits as the result of personal injuries or death shall be diminished by the claimant’s comparative fault or the uncollectibility of the full value of the claim resulting from limited liability insurance or any other cause in the same proportion as the claimant’s recovery is reduced. The lien or claim shall also bear a pro rata share of the claimant’s attorney fees and litigation expenses.
Insurance Fraud
I.C. § 27-2-13-2
Release of Information by Insurer
Insurer must furnish policy information relevant to fire loss, history of claims of claimant, and materials relating to fire investigation, if requested by an authorized agency investigating a fire loss.
I.C. § 27-2-13-3
Arson Reporting
When an insurer has reason to believe a fire loss in which it has an interest is caused by a means that was not accidental, then the company shall notify an authorized agency in writing and provide that agency with all materials developed from the insurer’s investigation of the fire loss. The insurer shall also provide the office of the state fire marshal a copy of any information provided under this section.
I.C. § 27-2-13-4
Arson Reporting
When an authorized agency receives information under this chapter, it may release or provide the same information to any other authorized agency to further its investigation. In addition, an insurer who provides information under this chapter has the reciprocal right to request and receive relevant information from that agency. Finally, an insurer or authorized agency, who releases or provides evidence or information under this chapter, is immune from any civil or criminal liability for providing the evidence or information.
I.C. § 27-2-13-5
Arson Reporting
When an authorized agency is investigating a fire that it believes to have been caused by arson it may, in writing, order an insurer to withhold payment of any policy proceeds on the damaged or destroyed property for up to thirty (30) days from the date of the order. The insurer may not make a payment during that time, except as follows:
(1) Emergency living expenses;
(2) Emergency action necessary to secure the premises;
(3) To prevent further damage to the premises; or
(4) To a mortgagee who is not the target of the investigation of the authorized agency.
I.C. § 27-2-14-2
Vehicle Theft Reporting
If an insurer has reason to believe that a vehicle theft claim made by an insured is fraudulent, the insurer shall notify, in writing, an authorized agency of the suspected fraudulent claim and provide the agency with all materials developed from the insurer’s investigation.
I.C. § 27-2-14-3
Vehicle Theft Reporting
An authorized agency investigating a vehicle theft may, in writing, require an insurer investigating the loss to release any and all relevant information or evidence considered important to the authorized agency, including:
(1) Pertinent policy information (including a policy application);
(2) Policy premium payment records;
(3) History of prior claims made by the insured; and
(4) Material relating to the investigation, including:
a) Statements;
b) Proofs of Loss; and/or
c) Other relevant evidence.
I.C. § 27-2-14-4
Vehicle Theft Reporting
An authorized agency provided with information under this chapter may release or provide the same information to any other authorized agency to further its investigation. In addition, an insurer who provides information under this section has the reciprocal right to request and receive relevant information from that agency. When requested, the agency shall provide the requested information within a reasonable time, not exceeding thirty (30) days. Finally, an insurer or authorized agency that releases or provides evidence or other information under this chapter is immune from civil or criminal liability for providing that information.
I.C. § 27-2-16-3
Claim Forms
All preprinted claim forms required by an insurer as a condition of payment of a claim must contain a statement which clearly states the following: “A person who knowingly and with intent to defraud an insurer files a statement of claim containing any false, incomplete, or misleading information commits a felony.”
I.C. § 36-8-17-7
Fire Investigation
A fire department must investigate and determine the cause of fire in their territory. If the fire chief believes a crime was committed, he must notify the division and submit a report. The report must include: 1) a statement of facts; 2) the extent of damage; 3) the amount of insurance; and 4) other information required in the commission’s rules. To carry out this section, the fire department may: 1) enter and inspect property; 2) cooperate with prosecuting attorney; 3) subpoena witnesses and documents; 4) give oaths; 5) take depositions and conduct hearings; and 6) separate witnesses and regulate the course of proceedings.
Miscellaneous Statutes
I.C. § 34-14-1-1
Declaratory Judgment
A court may declare rights, status, and other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed.
I.C. § 34-14-1-2
Declaratory Judgment
A person interested under a deed, will, written contract, or other writings or whose rights, status, or other legal relations are affected by a statute, municipal ordinance, contract, or franchise may have questions of construction or validity determined or obtain a declaration of rights, status, or legal relations thereunder.
I.C. § 34-50-1-4
Qualified Settlement Offer
This is essentially a codification of the Trial Rule 68 Offer of Judgment. When a qualified settlement offer is made pursuant to this statute, and not accepted, then the party rejecting the offer must ultimately obtain a more favorable judgment. If the rejecting party fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, the offering party is entitled to attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses in an amount not to exceed $1,000.00. To be valid, a qualified settlement offer must:
(1) Be in writing;
(2) Be signed by the offeror or the offeror’s attorney;
(3) Be designated on its face as a “qualified settlement offer;”
(4) Be delivered to each recipient or the recipient’s attorney by:
a) Registered or certified mail; or
b) Any other method that verifies the date of receipt; and
(5) Set forth the complete terms of the settlement proposal in sufficient detail to allow the recipient to decide whether to accept or reject it;
(6) Include the name and address of the offeror and the offeror’s attorney; and
(7) Expressly revoke all prior qualified settlement offers made by the offeror to the recipient.
Insurance Coverage Decisions
Dreaded Inc. v. St. Paul Guardian Insurance Co., 904 N.E.2d 1267 (Ind. 2009)
Notice of Claim
The insured was notified it faced a possible environmental damage claim and began its own process to deal with the claim. Three years later the insured notified the insurer of the claim. After notification the insured demanded that the insurer pay the costs accrued based on the duty to defend. The insurer denied the claim for lack of notice.
The court determined that there is no duty to defend until the insurer has received notice of the claim, therefore the insurer did not have to pay the costs accrued before receipt of notice. Notice must be given to trigger the insurer’s obligation to defend.
Negligence Decisions
Estate of Mintz v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co., 905 N.E.2d 994 (Ind. 2009)
Insurance Agent Negligence
An employee who held a life insurance policy was informed by the insurer that the policy limits would change at the employee’s retirement. Upon notice, the employee completed a conversion application from group life insurance to an individual policy. The employee was directed by his employer to an “agent” who failed to properly file the employee’s application with the insurer to secure the conversion of the life insurance policy. The full amount of the life insurance policy was not paid by insurer upon employee’s death, with the insurer citing the failure to properly file the conversion application as grounds for denial of the pre-retirement coverage.
The Supreme Court found that because negligence involves the application of the facts of the case to the duty owed by the agent, the issue of negligence was best left for a jury to decide, and not summary judgment. The Court further concluded that the “agent” was in fact classified as a broker, rather than an official agent of the insurer. The insurer did not provide the “agent” with a commission for converting the life insurance policies, the “agent” did not sell any insurance policies, and the “agent” had no written agreement with the insurer on his terms for selling the policies. Therefore, any negligence of the “agent” could not be imputed to the insurer.
Medical Expenses Decisions
Butler v. Indiana Dept. of Ins., 904 N.E.2d 198 (Ind. 2009)
Medical Expense Recovery
The action was initially brought as a medical malpractice action. The action was settled against the defendant health care providers, permitting the estate to proceed with the balance of its claims against the Indiana Department of Insurance, as administrator of the Patient’s Compensation Fund. The parties entered into a partial settlement, excluding only the estate’s claims for additional medical expenses that were not paid but were billed. The Indiana Supreme Court held that the language of the Indiana wrongful death statute for unmarried persons with no dependents was plain that the estate could only recover reasonable medical expenses necessitated by the wrongful act, as opposed to the reasonable value of medical care and treatment. As the expense amounts were settled for a lower amount, the difference was not a necessitated expense.
Stanley v. Walker, 2009 WL 1477496 (Ind. 2009)
Reasonable Value of Medical Expenses and Collateral Source Rule
Plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident. He sued for negligence and sought to recover medical expenses, lost wages, and damages for pain and suffering. The defendant sought to admit evidence of the plaintiff’s discounted medical bills. The Indiana Supreme Court first held that the reasonable value of medical services is the measure used to determine damages to an injured party in a personal injury matter. Second, the Court held that the collateral source rule does not bar evidence of discounted amounts to determine reasonable value of medical services provided to a plaintiff in a personal injury action. Third, the Court held that the defendant’s proffered evidence that the amount accepted by plaintiff’s medical providers in satisfaction of their medical bills was less than the amount originally billed was admissible.
Insurance Coverage Decisions
Brennan et al. v. Hall et al., 904 N.E.2d 383 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009)
Negligent Failure to Procure a Policy
The plaintiff contacted the defendant insurance broker seeking a homeowner’s insurance policy that would specifically cover her dogs, earthquake coverage, and coverage for a wood burning stove. The defendant broker informed her of a policy, and checked a “no” box referring to the plaintiff’s ownership of dogs because “they were not vicious.” When the plaintiff’s dog bit her niece, coverage was denied and policy cancelled due to misrepresentation. Suit was brought against the agent and his insurance agency.
The court held that if an agent is negligent in assisting a client to complete an insurance application, then the client can seek to recover damages from the agent if insurance coverage is denied. Although the plaintiff had the opportunity to review and sign the application, stating that all the information was accurate, the defendant broker was informed that the plaintiff did have dogs and that coverage for the dogs was a basis for her seeking a new insurance policy. The defendant insurance broker and insurance agency were liable to the plaintiff for the costs associated with defending the dog bite claim.
Everett Cash Mutual Ins. Co. v. Taylor, et al., Cause No. 02A03-0808-CV-386 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009)
Insurance Exclusions to Workers’ Compensation Coverage
The Taylors purchased a farm personal liability policy from Everett Mutual Insurance Company and asked that it be “all risk” but the policy still contained certain exclusionary clauses. One of the exclusions was for bodily injury to a domestic employee of the insured who has a workers’ compensation policy. The Taylors subsequently employed Sherlock Painting, whose employee was electrocuted while painting a grain barn. Sherlock Painting did not carry workers’ compensation insurance, and the employee brought suit against the Taylors.
Indiana Code § 22-3-2-14 provides that any person contracting for performance of work over $1,000.00 without exacting proof of the contractor’s workers’ compensation compliance shall be liable to the same extent as the contractor for any injuries suffered. The Taylors failed to do so, and their analysis would have been different had the employee claimed a tort action against the Taylors. The court also denied a claim of estoppel by the Taylors against Everett.
Motorists Mutual Ins. Co. v. Wroblewski, 898 N.E. 2d 1272 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009)
Policy Interpretation
The insureds gave their grandson, a minor, a car and subsequently executed a financial responsibility form agreeing to bear responsibility for any injuries or damages that other persons sustained by reason of the grandson’s operation of the motor vehicle. The grandson was determined to be at fault in an accident and the insureds became legally responsible. The insureds argued that their insurer’s policy covered the incident as it promised to pay for damages for which any insured became legally responsible because of an auto accident. Focusing on the policy’s exclusionary clause, the insurer argued that the grandson’s car was not covered under the policy and no liability existed. The court found that the insurer was not responsible because the grandson owned the car, which was not a covered auto under the policy.
Caesars Riverboat Casino, LLC v. Kephart, appealed from 903 N.E.2d 117 (Ind. App. 2009)
Repayment of Debt and Counterclaim for Unjust Enrichment
Plaintiff casino brought action for repayment of gambling debts, treble damages, and attorneys fees. The defendant brought a counterclaim for unjust enrichment based on allegations the casino took advantage of her gambling addiction in order to obtain more profits.
The Supreme Court will review the Court of Appeals’ decision that the defendant was not entitled to her counterclaim of unjust enrichment against the casino.
Everett Cash Mut. Ins. Co. v. Taylor, appealed from 904 N.E.2d 276 (Ind. App. 2009)
Insurance Exclusions to Workers’ Compensation Coverage
A third party brought a Workers’ Compensation claim against the insureds. The insurance company denied coverage, citing an exclusion in the policy for claims by a third party related to Workers’ Compensation.
The Supreme Court will review whether the contractual language in the policy properly excluded this type of Workers’ Compensation claim against the insureds.
Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Patrick, appealed from 906 N.E.2d 194 (Ind. App. 2009)
Medical Malpractice and Bystander Doctrine
A father brought an action for wrongful death under Indiana’s Adult Wrongful Death Statute and negligent infliction of emotional distress under the bystander doctrine, alleging he suffered severe anguish from witnessing the death of his child.
The Supreme Court will review whether, or not, the father was entitled to a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim based on the bystander doctrine.
Indianapolis-Marion County Public Library v. Charlier Clark & Linard, P.C., appealed from 900 N.E.2d 801 (Ind. App. 2009)
Construction Subcontractor Negligence
A public library brought suit against engineering subcontractors for the design and construction of a new parking garage. The trial court and Court of Appeals found the suit was barred by the “economic loss doctrine” because the library did not have a direct contract with the engineering subcontractors it sued.
The Supreme Court will review the application of the “economic loss doctrine” and determine whether the library can commence in a suit against the engineering subcontractors.
Kroger Co. v. Plonski, appealed from 905 N.E.2d 448 (Ind. App. 2009)
Third Party Liability for Injuries Sustained on Property
The plaintiff was carjacked and assaulted in the grocery store’s parking lot and sought damages from the grocery store for negligence.
The Supreme Court will review whether there was sufficient evidence presented of the grocery store’s breach of duty and proximate cause to the plaintiff to survive summary judgment in favor of the grocery store.
Sibbling v. Cave, 915 N.E.2d 993 (Table), appealed from 901 N.E.2d 1155 (Ind. App. 2009)
Testimony at Personal Injury Trial
A personal injury claim went to trial on the issue of damages only. The trial court allowed the personal injury plaintiff to testify concerning information doctors told her about the extent of her injuries. Further, the trial court did not allow the defendant’s expert witness to testify that some of the medical treatment the plaintiff received was unnecessary.
The Supreme Court will review the Court of Appeals’ determination that the testimonial rulings were harmless, and that no error occurred.
Travelers Indem. Co. of America v. Jarrells, appealed from 906 N.E.2d 912 (Ind. App. 2009)
Judgment Lien After Payment of Workers’ Compensation Benefits
The defendant prevailed on a personal injury suit against a third party. The insurance company brought this action to secure a judgment lien against the defendant’s verdict based on Workers’ Compensation benefits the insurance company previously paid on behalf of the injured defendant.
The Supreme Court will review whether the insurance company is entitled to a judgment lien in light of its payment of Workers’ Compensation benefits, as the Court of Appeals held.