Despite the fact that UIM coverage has been available in Indiana for almost 25 years, questions regularly arise whether an insured can combine or “stack” the coverage limits of those policies to increase the total coverage for the loss and how payments are applied.  Recently, the Indiana Court of Appeals confronted a scenario involving a three-car accident, which resulted in the death of a passenger.  

The changing legal status of marijuana in the U.S. is prompting insurers to begin offering coverages, despite having extremely limited loss data to inform them.

Madison Consolidated Schools recently lost an appeal of a summary judgment denial in a lawsuit brought by a former student who was injured in a school bus crash.

Meet members of the Insurance Coverage Section with the Take Ten Q&A Series!

This year has brought new changes to the Indiana Civil Protection Order Act, most notably harassment is now covered by IC 34-26-5 along with family/partner violence, sexual assault and stalking. Pursuant to the IC 34-26-9(g) there is a now a judicial mandate, upon a showing of harassment by a preponderance of the evidence, the court shall grant the relief necessary to stop the violence or threat of violence. 

After Megan Osborne and Miranda Stirling were rocked by stage diving concert goers during respective hardcore punk concerts, they each sued band manager, Good Fight Entertainment, LLC, for negligence. Good Fight sought coverage for the lawsuit, but it could get no satisfaction from its insurer, Travelers Insurance, which denied coverage. 

Interpreting Michigan’s No-Fault Statute, the Michigan Supreme Court held an owner or registrant of a motor vehicle is not required to personally purchase no-fault insurance to avoid being barred from receiving personal injury protection benefits. Rather, the statute only requires that the owner maintain the No-Fault insurance at the time of the accident for which PIP benefits are sought.

Recently, the Seventh Circuit found that a policyholder’s act of simply notifying it prior Directors’ and Officers’ insurance provider barred coverage under the current D&O policy, even though the current policy should have otherwise provided coverage. 

In Lee v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., the Indiana Court of Appeals examined the question of whether an automobile insurer is entitled to offer underinsured motorist benefits (UIM) coverage in an amount below the bodily injury liability coverage limits of the underlying policy.

In a dispute over coverage related to the loss of fish and bad faith claims handling under a commercial property policy, Westfield Insurance Company argued unsuccessfully that $1.65 million of Bell Aquaculture LLC’s fish destroyed when a generator switch failed was not covered pursuant to an Animal Exclusion and EBC Endorsement exclusion.