Court of Appeals Broadly Defines “Occupy” in UM/UIM Case

By RJ Prioe, Taylor DeVore & Padgett PC

A recent Indiana Court of Appeals decision provided uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage to a roadside repair employee who was fixing a customer’s flat tire when he was struck by a tire that fell off a passing truck. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Shipley, 2021 WL 5707653 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021). Although the repair employee did not physically “occupy” and was not “using” his work truck at the time of the accident, he had the “active relationship” with the truck necessary to find that he fell within the coverage grants of the policy’s liability and UM/UIM coverages. The Court of Appeals further suggested that this result should have been expected by all parties to the insurance contract, as roadside repair people obviously have to get in and out of their vehicles consistently, and the insured would clearly want coverage during those periods. Read the opinion here.

If you would like to submit content or write an article for the Insurance Coverage Section, please email Kara Sikorski at ksikorski@indybar.org.

Subscribe to Insurance Coverage Section news here!