Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Company v. Charlene Frierson and Roderick Frierson , 49 N.E.3d 1075 ( 2016 )

Jan 21 2016, 9:02 am
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES
John C. Trimble David W. Stone IV
Richard K. Shoultz STONE Law Office & Legal
Wandini B. Riggins Research
Lewis Wagner, LLP Anderson, Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana Rom Byron
Ken Nunn Law Office
Bloomington, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Empire Fire and Marine January 21, 2016
Insurance Company, Court of Appeals Case No.
Appellant-Defendant, 49A02-1503-CT-126
Appeal from the Marion Superior
v. Court
The Honorable Timothy W.
Charlene Frierson and Roderick Oakes, Judge
Frierson, Trial Court Cause No.
Appellees-Plaintiffs. 49D13-1111-CT-42812
Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1503-CT-126 | January 21, 2016 Page 1 of 17
[1] Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Company (“Empire”) appeals from the trial
court’s order denying its motion for summary judgment in favor of Charlene
Frierson and Roderick Frierson (collectively, the “Friersons”) and the denial of
its motion to correct error. Empire raises three issues, one of which we find
dispositive and which we revise and restate as whether the court erred in
denying Empire’s motion for summary judgment. We reverse.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On April 25, 2011 Charlene Frierson was involved in an automobile accident
with Ashley Talsma. At the time, Talsma was insured under an automobile
liability insurance policy issued by Allstate which provided bodily injury
liability coverage in the amount of $25,000 for each person and $50,000 for
each occurrence. Before trial, Talsma’s carrier tendered $25,000 in policy
liability limits to the Friersons. Charlene was insured under a separate
automobile policy issued by Allstate, and the Friersons sought Underinsured
Motorist (“UIM”) benefits from Allstate, which also tendered $25,000 of UIM
coverage after setting off Talsma’s liability limits.
[3] Charlene was operating an automobile that she had rented from Enterprise.
She completed a rental agreement with Enterprise under which she purchased
optional Supplemental Liability Protection (“SLP”). The rental agreement (the
“Rental Agreement”) provided in part:
7. Responsibility to Third Parties. . . . Except to the extent
required by the motor vehicle financial responsibility laws of the
applicable state or otherwise by law, Owner [Enterprise] does not
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1503-CT-126 | January 21, 2016 Page 2 of 17
extend any of its motor vehicle financial responsibility or provide
insurance coverage to Renter . . . . Renter agrees to provide
coverage for damage resulting from the operation of the vehicle.
9. Personal Injury Protection and Uninsured/Underinsured
Motorist Protection. Except as required by law, Owner
[Enterprise] does not provide Personal Injury Protection, No
Fault Benefits or Medical Payment Coverage (collectively “PIP”)
or Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Protection (“UM/UIM”)
through this Agreement. If Owner is required by law to provide
PIP and/or UM/UIM, Renter expressly selects such protection
in the minimum limits with the maximum deductible and
expressly waives and rejects PIP and/or UM/UIM limits in
excess of the minimum limits required by law.
Appellant’s Appendix at 43.
[4] In addition, the Rental Agreement in Paragraph 17, titled “Optional
Supplemental Liability Protection,” contained a summary of the optional SLP
product. Paragraph 17 first states: “THIS IS A SUMMARY ONLY AND IS
SUBJECT TO ALL PROVISIONS, LIMITATIONS, EXCEPTIONS AND
EXCLUSIONS OF THE SLP POLICY. UPON REQUEST, A COPY OF
THE POLICY IS AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW. . . .” Id. Paragraph 17 further
states that when a renter elects to purchase SLP, the renter is provided with
“minimum financial responsibility limits (at no charge to Renter) as outlined in
the applicable motor vehicle financial responsibility laws of the state where the
Vehicle is operated AND excess Insurance provided by the Insurance policy . . .
.” Id. Also, under the heading “SLP Exclusions,” it states: “For all exclusions,
see the SLP policy issued by Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Company.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1503-CT-126 | January 21, 2016 Page 3 of 17
Here are a few key exclusions: . . . (d) Liability arising out of or benefits payable
under any uninsured or underinsured motorist law, in any state . . . .” Id. The
SLP purchased by Charlene was provided through Empire (the “Empire
Policy”). The designated evidence does not indicate that Charlene requested a
copy of the Empire Policy, and she was not provided with a copy of such
policy. Id. at 45.
[5] Enterprise Holdings, Inc. (“Enterprise”) is the policyholder under the Empire
Policy, which covers all of Enterprise’s rental vehicles, including the
automobile rented by Charlene. The Empire Policy states that it provides
“excess auto liability insurance,” id. at 95, and it contains language excluding
Uninsured Motorist (“UM”) and UIM coverage unless specifically listed for
certain states as follows:
D. EXCLUSIONS
In addition to the exclusions contained in the “underlying
insurance,” this insurance does not apply to the following:
*****
5. Liability arising out of benefits payable under any
uninsured or underinsured motorist law, in any
state.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1503-CT-126 | January 21, 2016 Page 4 of 17
Id. at 96. By endorsement, Empire provided UM and UIM coverage in five
specified states, but Indiana is not on the list.1
[6] On November 7, 2011, the Friersons filed a complaint for damages against
Talsma, which they later amended on January 24, 2013 to include Empire.2
Empire filed an appearance on December 1, 2011, and on January 9, 2012, filed
its Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Request for Jury Trial. On October 1,
2012, Empire filed a motion for summary judgment in which it sought a
determination that the Empire Policy did not provide either UM or UIM
coverage to the Friersons. On November 29, 2012, the Friersons filed their
response to Empire’s motion.
[7] On January 9, 2013, a hearing was held on Empire’s motion, and on January
15, 2013, the court entered an order summarily denying the motion.
[8] A trial was held on November 5 and 6, 2014, and ultimately the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the Friersons in the amount of $185,000 which was
subsequently reduced to a net verdict of $129,500 based on comparative fault.
On December 9, 2014, Empire filed a Consolidated Motion for Set-off and a
motion to correct error, and on January 28, 2015, the court held a hearing on
the consolidated motions. On February 3, 2015, the court entered an order
1
The specified states are Florida, Louisiana, New Hampshire, Vermont, and West Virginia.
2
The amended complaint also named Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company as a defendant;
however, that party was later dismissed.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1503-CT-126 | January 21, 2016 Page 5 of 17
denying Empire’s motion to correct error but granting in part its request for set
off against the verdict, reducing the judgment against Empire to $79,500 after
setting off the $50,000 received by the Friersons from Talsma and Allstate.
Discussion
[9] The dispositive issue is whether the court erred in denying Empire’s motion for
summary judgment. We review an order for summary judgment de novo,
applying the same standard as the trial court. Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000,
1003 (Ind. 2014). The moving party bears the initial burden of making a prima
facie showing that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that it is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Manley v. Sherer, 992 N.E.2d 670, 673
(Ind. 2013). Summary judgment is improper if the moving party fails to carry
its burden, but if it succeeds, then the nonmoving party must come forward
with evidence establishing the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. Id.We construe all factual inferences in favor of the nonmoving party and resolve
all doubts as to the existence of a material issue against the moving party. Id.[10] The construction of a contract is particularly well-suited for de novo appellate
review, because it generally presents questions purely of law. Holiday Hospitality
Franchising, Inc. v. AMCO Ins. Co., 983 N.E.2d 574, 577 (Ind. 2013) (citing
Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Guzorek, 690 N.E.2d 664, 667 (Ind. 1997)). Insurance
contracts are governed by the same rules of construction as any other contract.
Id. Clear and unambiguous policy language is given its ordinary meaning in
order to accomplish the primary goal of contract interpretation: “to determine
the intent of the parties at the time the contract was made as disclosed by the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1503-CT-126 | January 21, 2016 Page 6 of 17
language used to express their rights and duties.” Id. at 577-578 (quoting First
Fed. Sav. Bank of Ind. v. Key Markets, Inc., 559 N.E.2d 600, 603 (Ind. 1990)).
[11] Where contractual language is ambiguous, we generally resolve those
ambiguities in favor of the insured, but will not do so if such an interpretation
fails to harmonize the provisions of the contract as a whole. Id. at 578.
However, the failure to define a contractual term does not necessarily make that
term ambiguous, nor does a simple disagreement about the term’s meaning. Id.
“Rather, an ambiguity exists where the provision is susceptible to more than
one reasonable interpretation.” Id.
[12] This court has observed that “[i]nsurance companies are free to limit their
liability, so long as they do so in a manner consistent with public policy as
reflected by case or statutory law.” Gheae v. Founders Ins. Co., 854 N.E.2d 419,
423 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). Also, “[a]n insurance policy that is unambiguous
must be enforced according to its terms, even those terms that limit an insurer’s
liability.” Haag v. Castro, 959 N.E.2d 819, 823 (Ind. 2012). Where an
ambiguity exists, the policy is generally construed in favor of the insured. USA
Life One Ins. Co. of Ind. v. Nuckolls, 682 N.E.2d 534, 538 (Ind. 1997). This is
particularly the case where a policy excludes coverage. Id.; Am. States Ins. Co. v.
Kiger, 662 N.E.2d 945 (Ind. 1996), reh’g denied. However, when a case involves
a dispute between a third party and an insurer, the court does not construe it
strictly against the insurer, but determines the general intent of the contract
from a neutral stance. Burkett v. Am. Family Ins. Grp., 737 N.E.2d 447, 452 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2000); Ind. Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co. v. Statesman Ins. Co., 260 Ind. 32,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1503-CT-126 | January 21, 2016 Page 7 of 17
34, 291 N.E.2d 897, 899 (1973). In addition, an ambiguity does not exist
simply because an insured and an insurer disagree about the meaning of a
provision, but only if reasonable people could disagree about the meaning of the
contract’s terms. Beam v. Wausau Ins. Co., 765 N.E.2d 524, 528 (Ind. 2002),
reh’g denied; Bosecker v. Westfield Ins. Co., 724 N.E.2d 241, 244 (Ind. 2000) (“An
ambiguity exists where a provision is susceptible to more than one
interpretation and reasonable persons would differ as to its meaning.”).
[13] Empire argues that its policy clearly and unambiguously excluded UM and
UIM coverage except in five states, none of which are Indiana, and that
Enterprise accordingly paid no premium for UIM coverage for vehicles rented
and operated in Indiana. It argues that in 2009 subsection (d) was added to Ind.
Code § 27-7-5-2, which specifically addresses the issue presented, and was a
direct response by the legislature to the Indiana Supreme Court’s holding in
United Nat’l Ins. Co. v. DePrizio, 705 N.E.2d 455 (Ind. 1999), “that a commercial
umbrella policy providing excess automobile liability coverage qualified as ‘an
automobile liability policy or motor vehicle liability policy’ and insurers were to
provide UM and UIM coverage under” Ind. Code § 27-7-5-2(a). Appellant’s
Brief at 10. Empire also directs our attention to a United States Federal District
Court case, Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Herring-Jenkins, 830 F. Supp. 2d 566 (N.D. Ind.
2011), interpreting subsection (d), as well as another state court case finding
that the policy issued in that case, which Empire suggests is identical to its
policy, finding the policy in that case to be “a true excess policy.” Appellant’s
Brief at 14 (citing Collins v. Randall, 836 So.2d 352 (La. App. 2002)). To the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1503-CT-126 | January 21, 2016 Page 8 of 17
extent the Friersons assert that Charlene requested “full coverage,” Empire
contends that their argument assumes the Empire Policy is an “automobile
liability or motor vehicle liability policy of insurance” when in fact it is a
“commercial umbrella or excess liability policy.” Appellant’s Reply Brief at 4.
[14] The Friersons assert that Charlene averred in a designated affidavit that she
“asked the Enterprise salesman for ‘full coverage’ to insure” the vehicle, and
that the Rental Agreement was “in very small print and very difficult to read.”
Appellees’ Brief at 11. They argue that this court has previously held that “if an
insurance carrier desires to exclude coverage, this should be spelled out for the
policyholder in clear and unmistakable language with conspicuous and plain
positioning,” and that “[t]here is nothing clear or unmistakable about any
claimed exclusion of UM/UIM coverage in the only partly legible fine print.”
Id. (quoting Nat’l Mut. Ins. Co. v. Curtis, 867 N.E.2d 631, 637 (Ind. Ct. App.
2007)). The Friersons assert that Empire did not establish that the policy at
issue in Collins is the same as the Empire Policy, and they direct our attention to
a case from the Arizona Supreme Court discussing “the realities of purchasing
insurance in connection with a rental car transaction . . . .” Id. at 12 (citing
Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co. v. Barerra, 200 Ariz. 9, 21 P.3d 395 (2001)).3
3
The Friersons assert that Empire waived its right to claim it was not required to provide UIM coverage,
arguing that it did not object to certain jury instructions. Because we hold that the court erred in denying
summary judgment in Empire’s favor, however, we need not address this argument.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1503-CT-126 | January 21, 2016 Page 9 of 17
[15] At the time of the accident, Ind. Code § 27-7-5-2, titled “Coverage for bodily
injury or death; required provisions; rejection,” provided in relevant part:
(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), the insurer shall make
available, in each automobile liability or motor vehicle liability
policy of insurance which is delivered or issued for delivery in
this state with respect to any motor vehicle registered or
principally garaged in this state, insuring against loss resulting
from liability imposed by law for bodily injury or death suffered
by any person and for injury to or destruction of property to
others arising from the ownership, maintenance, or use of a
motor vehicle, or in a supplement to such a policy, the following
types of coverage:
(1) in limits for bodily injury or death and for injury to or
destruction of property not less than those set forth in IC 9-
25-4-5 under policy provisions approved by the
commissioner of insurance, for the protection of persons
insured under the policy who are legally entitled to recover
damages from owners or operators of uninsured or
underinsured motor vehicles because of bodily injury,
sickness or disease, including death, and for the protection
of persons insured under the policy who are legally entitled
to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured
motor vehicles for injury to or destruction of property
resulting therefrom; or
(2) in limits for bodily injury or death not less than those
set forth in IC 9-25-4-5 under policy provisions approved
by the commissioner of insurance, for the protection of
persons insured under the policy provisions who are
legally entitled to recover damages from owners or
operators of uninsured or underinsured motor vehicles
because of bodily injury, sickness or disease, including
death resulting therefrom.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1503-CT-126 | January 21, 2016 Page 10 of 17
The uninsured and underinsured motorist coverages must be
provided by insurers for either a single premium or for separate
premiums, in limits at least equal to the limits of liability
specified in the bodily injury liability provisions of an insured’s
policy, unless such coverages have been rejected in writing by the
insured. However, underinsured motorist coverage must be
made available in limits of not less than fifty thousand dollars
($50,000). At the insurer’s option, the bodily injury liability
provisions of the insured’s policy may be required to be equal to
the insured’s underinsured motorist coverage. Insurers may not
sell or provide underinsured motorist coverage in an amount less
than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000). Insurers must make
underinsured motorist coverage available to all existing
policyholders on the date of the first renewal of existing policies
that occurs on or after January 1, 1995, and on any policies
newly issued or delivered on or after January 1, 1995. Uninsured
motorist coverage or underinsured motorist coverage may be
offered by an insurer in an amount exceeding the limits of
liability specified in the bodily injury and property damage
liability provisions of the insured’s policy.
*****
(d) An insurer is not required to make available the coverage
described in subsection (a) in a commercial umbrella or excess
liability policy, including a commercial umbrella or excess
liability policy that is issued or delivered to a motor carrier (as
defined in IC 8-2.1-17-10) that is in compliance with the
minimum levels of financial responsibility set forth in 49 CFR
Part 387.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1503-CT-126 | January 21, 2016 Page 11 of 17
(Subsequently amended by Pub. L. No. 116-2011, § 2 (eff. July 1, 2011); Pub.
L. No. 125-2012, § 403 (eff. July 1, 2012); Pub. L. No. 148-2013, § 1 (eff. July 1,
2013)).4
[16] We find that the Empire Policy is indeed an excess liability policy under Ind.
Code § 27-7-5-2(d). In Section I, Paragraph A, Subparagraph 1 of the Empire
Policy, located on the first page of the policy, states unequivocally: “This policy
provides excess auto liability insurance . . . .” Appellant’s Appendix at 95. It
also states, under the heading “GENERAL CONDITIONS,” the following:
“UNDERLYING INSURANCE. The policy or policies of insurance, bond,
cash deposits or self-insurance must be maintained in full effect by the
‘policyholder’ or ‘insured’, during the term of this policy as a condition
precedent to coverage. . . .” Id. at 98. The Rental Agreement is consistent that
the Empire Policy is an excess policy. In Paragraph 17, found on the third page
of the four page document, under the heading “ADDITIONAL TERMS AND
CONDITIONS, it states that the SLP product provides the renter with
“minimum financial responsibility limits (at no charge to Renter) as outlined in
the applicable motor vehicle financial responsibility laws of the state where the
Vehicle is operated AND excess Insurance provided by the Insurance policy,”
which is a reference to the Empire Policy. Id. at 43 (emphasis added). Because
the Empire Policy is an excess liability policy, it is not required to provide
4
The current version of Ind. Code § 27-7-5-2 is nearly identical to the 2010 version.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1503-CT-126 | January 21, 2016 Page 12 of 17
UM/UIM coverage. Ind. Code § 27-7-5-2(d); see also Herring-Jenkins, 830 F.
Supp. 2d at 582-583 (noting that the General Assembly enacted Ind. Code § 27-
7-5-2(d) as a response to the Indiana Supreme Court’s opinion in DePrizio,
which previously held that “the uninsured/underinsured motorist statute
applied to all umbrella policies that provided third party auto liability
coverage”).
[17] The crux of the Friersons’ claims on appeal is that the exclusion of UM/UIM
coverage was not spelled out for Charlene in clear and unmistakable language
with conspicuous and plain positioning in the Rental Agreement, relying on
this court’s statements in Curtis. In Curtis, this court examined whether a
homeowner’s policy issued by National Mutual to the Curtises provided
coverage against a claim by Justin Beaulieu for personal injury liability for
injuries arising out of the ownership or use of a trampoline. 867 N.E.2d at 632.
The court held that the placement of the trampoline exclusion in the policy was
inconspicuous and amounted to an ambiguity in the policy. Id. at 637. In so
holding, the court stated that “only a very hardy soul would have plowed
through all of the fine print and separate sections in an effort to understand the
many terms and conditions listed in the main policy and the convoluted
additions thereto,” noting that “[o]n reaching the main policy’s fifteenth page, a
reading of the liability coverage and its exclusions would have furnished
reassurance of coverage in the event of personal injuries incurred in the use of
the trampoline.” Id. at 636. The court stated that “[f]urther investigation of the
main policy would not have divulged anything to the contrary,” and that
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1503-CT-126 | January 21, 2016 Page 13 of 17
“[n]owhere was there any straightforward and unconditional statement that the
policy was not intended to protect the homeowners in this situation.” Id. It
noted that “[i]t is not until fourteen pages of long, fine print later, in a section
misleadingly entitled Supplemental Extensions, that—almost as an
afterthought—National Mutual excludes personal injuries arising out of the
ownership, maintenance, and use of a trampoline,” and further that “[u]nlike
the different sections of the main policy, the Supplemental Extensions two-page
form does not employ any significant bolding, capitalization, or interlineations
to clarify and set apart the separate exclusions.” Id. at 636-637.
[18] The court also discussed the “scant Indiana case law establishing that the
structural complexity of a policy can result in an ambiguity.” The court first
discussed Hessler v. Fed. Cas. Co. of Detroit, Mich., 190 Ind. 68, 129 N.E. 325(1921), in which the Indiana Supreme Court “refused to enforce an exclusion of
coverage that contradicted statements made elsewhere in the insurance policy.”
Id. at 635. The Court observed that the fire insurance policy at issue
“prominently proclaimed broad accident coverage and then, further along in
the policy ‘printed in small type, without any further headlines’ was an
exclusion of certain coverage.” Id. (quoting Hessler, 129 N.E. at 326). The
Court “refused to enforce the exclusion ‘hidden away in small type, in clause
(m) following, without headlines, other clauses . . .’ and instead enforced the
‘unequivocal statement on the back of the policy, presented in a manner as to
catch the eye of the insured.’” Id. (quoting Hessler, 129 N.E. at 327).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1503-CT-126 | January 21, 2016 Page 14 of 17
[19] The Curtis court also discussed the case of Redar v. Allstate Ins. Co., 497 N.E.2d
566 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985), wherein appellant Redar argued “that the
exclusionary clauses of the policy were not conspicuously placed in the contract
since they were inserted on pages two and three, after the omnibus clause.” Id.(citing Redar, 497 N.E.2d at 567). We disagreed, holding that although “the
exclusionary clause followed the omnibus clause by one page, we do not believe
this creates any ambiguity with regard to who is or is not covered under the
policy,” and that it was not “unreasonable for the general coverage of the
omnibus clause to be limited by specific exclusions which follow, clearly
marked, on the next page of the contract.” Id. (quoting Redar, 497 N.E.2d at
568). We also noted that we could not say, “as a matter of law, that such
placement is inconspicuous so as to excuse an insured from being aware of such
exclusions.” Id. (quoting Redar, 497 N.E.2d at 568).
[20] We find Curtis to be distinguishable. First, to the extent that the Friersons assert
that the Rental Agreement was comprised of fine print which was difficult to
read, we note that such fine print is only two and one-half pages in length. The
Rental Agreement states in Paragraph 7 that Enterprise “does not extend any of
its motor vehicle financial responsibility or provide insurance coverage to
Renter,” and in Paragraph 9, titled “Personal Injury Protection and
Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Protection,” that Enterprise “does not
provide Personal Injury Protection, No Fault Benefits or Medical Payment
Coverage (collectively ‘PIP’) or Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Protection
(‘UM/UIM’) through this Agreement.” Appellant’s Appendix at 43. Unlike in
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1503-CT-126 | January 21, 2016 Page 15 of 17
Hessler, neither the Empire Policy nor the Rental Agreement purports to provide
broad coverage only to further down the policy list certain exclusions. In fact,
the top of the Rental Agreement’s discussion of the SLP in Paragraph 17
contains language in all caps that the SLP is “SUBJECT TO ALL
PROVISIONS, LIMITATIONS, EXCEPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS OF
THE SLP POLICY.” Id. That same paragraph notes specifically, under the
heading “SLP Exclusions,” that “[l]iability arising out of or benefits payable
under any uninsured or underinsured motorist law, in any state” is excluded
from coverage. Id. We further note that the Empire Policy itself contains
easily-readable typeface, is six pages in length, and states on the second page of
the policy, under the heading “EXCLUSIONS,” that “Liability arising out of
benefits payable under any uninsured or underinsured motorist law, in any
state” is excluded from coverage. Id. at 96. Under the circumstances, we
cannot say that the rule espoused in Curtis applies.
[21] The Empire Policy purchased by the Friersons for SLP coverage did not
provide UIM coverage to the Friersons. Accordingly, we conclude that the
court erred when it denied Empire’s motion for summary judgment.5
5
Because we reverse the trial court’s denial of Empire’s motion for summary judgment, we need not address
its arguments that: (A) the court treated the denial of Empire’s motion for summary judgment as a grant of
summary judgment in favor of the Friersons on the issue of coverage and accordingly impermissibly limited
the issues at trial to liability and damages; and (B) the court should have reduced its UIM exposure to zero
because there should have been a limit of $50,000 imposed.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1503-CT-126 | January 21, 2016 Page 16 of 17
Conclusion
[22] For the foregoing reasons, we grant Empire’s motion for summary judgment.
[23] Reversed.
Riley, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1503-CT-126 | January 21, 2016 Page 17 of 17