Case Title: Glover v. Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Co.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 20S-CT-23

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 2020-10-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
I N  T H E  
Indiana Supreme Court 
Supreme Court Case No. 20S-CT-23 
Steven Glover, As Personal Representative of the 
Estate of Shelina M. Glover, 
Appellant, 
–v– 
Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company, 
Appellee. 
Argued: March 12, 2020 | Decided: October 8, 2020 
Appeal from the Marion Superior Court  
No. 49D14-1711-CT-41566 
The Honorable James B. Osborn, Judge 
On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals 
Case No. 19A-CT-403 
Opinion by Justice Slaughter 
Chief Justice Rush and Justices David, Massa, and Goff concur. 
 
 
 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Oct 08 2020, 12:02 pm
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 20S-CT-23 | October 8, 2020 
Page 2 of 10 
Slaughter, Justice. 
Shelina Glover died in a car crash that was not her fault. Her estate 
settled its claims against the two responsible drivers, whose insurers paid 
policy limits totaling $75,000. The Estate also received separate settlements 
of $25,000 each for underinsured-motorist (UIM) coverage from Shelina’s 
own carrier and from that of her estranged husband, who was driving the 
vehicle in which she died. 
At issue here is the Estate’s request for further UIM coverage of $25,000 
under Shelina’s parents’ Allstate policy, which provides up to $100,000 
per person for bodily injury, including death. Allstate opposes the Estate’s 
claim on two grounds. First, it says Shelina was not a “resident relative” 
under the policy, meaning she was not an eligible insured, because her 
parents did not notify Allstate that she had been living with them. Second, 
Allstate argues that even if Shelina were an insured person under her 
parents’ policy, the policy’s offset and anti-stacking provisions bar the 
Estate from recovery because the $125,000 the Estate received from other 
insurers exceeds the limits under the policy. 
We reject both of Allstate’s arguments. First, we hold that Shelina was 
an “insured person” under the policy. She qualified as a “resident 
relative” because she lived with her parents, and her parents did not need 
to notify Allstate of her status because she was not an “operator” living 
within their household. Second, we hold that the policy’s anti-stacking 
provision does not limit an insured’s ability to recover under multiple 
UIM policies and that the policy’s offset provision reduces only the 
payments made on behalf of those persons directly liable for the injury—
$75,000 on this record. Having granted transfer, we vacate the trial court’s 
judgment and remand with instructions to grant the Estate’s cross-motion 
for summary judgment. 
I 
Shelina Glover died in a three-car accident. Kenneth Bogue was 
driving on County Road 300 in Decatur, Indiana, followed by Terry 
Robinson and his passenger, Shelina Glover. Matthew Hahn was 
approaching these drivers on the same road from the opposite direction. 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 20S-CT-23 | October 8, 2020 
Page 3 of 10 
As Bogue and Hahn were passing each other, Hahn clipped the trailer that 
Bogue was pulling. The impact forced Hahn into Robinson’s path, causing 
a head-on collision from which Shelina died. Four insurance carriers were 
involved: 
• Omni Insurance, which insured Bogue; 
• Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company, which 
insured Hahn; 
• American Family Insurance Company, which insured 
Robinson; and 
• GEICO, which insured Shelina. 
Omni (Bogue’s insurer) and Allstate (Hahn’s insurer) divvied up 
responsibility for the accident, assigning 52 percent of liability to Bogue 
and 48 percent to Hahn. Omni then filed an interpleader action, offering 
its policy limits because others also sustained injuries in the accident.  
As Omni’s suit was proceeding, Steven Glover, as personal 
representative of the Estate, sued Allstate alleging it had issued a policy to 
Shelina’s parents, Wayne and Dovie Glover, and owed excess UIM 
coverage to Shelina. According to the suit, Shelina was a “resident 
relative” under her parents’ policy because she had moved in with them 
six weeks before the accident and intended to live there for the foreseeable 
future. Thus, the suit alleged Shelina was an “insured person” under her 
parents’ policy.  
After the Estate sued, Omni’s interpleader action went to mediation, 
during which time Omni (for Bogue) and Allstate (for Hahn) agreed to 
pay the Estate their respective per-person-liability limits—totaling $75,000.  
Later, the Estate received two separate $25,000 UIM payments—one each 
from American Family (for Robinson) and GEICO (for Shelina). These 
payments brought the Estate’s total recovery to $125,000—consisting of 
$75,000 in liability settlements and $50,000 in UIM settlements. See Glover 
v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 133 N.E.3d 184, 189 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), 
trans. granted, 141 N.E.3d 22 (Ind. 2020). 
Allstate, as insurer for Shelina’s parents, then sought summary 
judgment against the Estate, arguing two issues. First, the policy required 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 20S-CT-23 | October 8, 2020 
Page 4 of 10 
the parents to notify Allstate when an operator became a “resident 
relative”, and the parents never told Allstate that Shelina had moved in 
with them. 133 N.E.3d at 188. Second, Allstate owed nothing to the Estate 
under the “anti-stacking” and “offset” provisions of her parents’ policy 
because the Estate had received settlements from other insureds in 
amounts exceeding the parents’ UIM policy limit. Id. The Estate cross-
moved for summary judgment, arguing that the notification requirement 
did not apply, that Allstate’s policy allowed for offsets only of liability 
settlements, and that the anti-stacking provision barred aggregating UIM 
limits but not UIM recoveries. The gist of the Estate’s argument was that it 
was entitled to $25,000 in UIM coverage under the parents’ policy. The 
trial court granted summary judgment for Allstate based on the offset 
provision but denied Allstate’s motion on the issue of notification. 
The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the parents’ Allstate 
policy mandated that UIM limits “shall be reduced by [] all amounts paid” 
to the Estate. Glover, 133 N.E.3d at 191 (cleaned up). Because the Estate 
had already recovered funds from other insurers, the court held that “the 
Policy’s UIM limit was reduced to zero.” Id. Thus, the court determined, 
the “Estate is not entitled to further recovery under the Policy.” Id. The 
court did not reach the issue of Shelina’s status as a “resident relative”. 
133 N.E.3d at 185 n.1. We granted the Estate’s petition to transfer, 141 
N.E.3d at 22, thus vacating the court of appeals’ opinion. 
II 
First, we consider whether Shelina was a “resident relative” and thus 
an “insured person” for UIM purposes under her parents’ Allstate policy. 
Under the policy, an insured person includes “any resident relative.” The 
parties agree that Shelina is her parents’ “relative”, so her status turns on 
whether she is also a “resident”, which the policy defines as “a person 
who physically resides in [the policyholders’] household with the 
intention to continue residence there.” 
When Shelina moved in with her parents—the policyholders—she 
packed up everything she and her children owned; she changed her 
address with the United States Postal Service to that of her parents’ home; 
and her parents described their home as Shelina’s “new home.” These 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 20S-CT-23 | October 8, 2020 
Page 5 of 10 
facts show that Shelina intended to remain at her parents’ home and thus 
was a “resident” under their policy. 
Despite Shelina’s intention to continue living with her parents, Allstate 
nevertheless argues that she was not an “insured person” due to its lack of 
notice. According to Allstate, “the Glovers’ policy specifically requires 
notification to Allstate when there is a new resident relative to be added to 
the policy”, yet her parents never notified Allstate of Shelina’s move. The 
Estate counters that the policy’s plain language says the notice 
requirement applies “whenever an operator becomes a resident of your 
household.” In other words, it argues, Shelina’s residency in her parents’ 
household is not dispositive of the notice issue. For the notice requirement 
to apply, Shelina must have been an “operator” who resides within their 
household. 
Unfortunately, Allstate’s policy does not define “operator”. And in 
briefing before the court of appeals and our Court, Allstate did not 
propose a definition. Given the policy’s silence and the term’s plain 
meaning, we interpret “operator” to be a person who is or will be 
operating one of the vehicles covered under the policy. Applying this 
interpretation, we hold that Shelina was not an operator. When she moved 
into her parents’ home, she had her own car. Her parents “did not 
anticipate that Shelina would operate” either of the vehicles “listed on the 
Policy . . . because she had her own car.” And her mother said that “[f]rom 
the time she moved into our home . . . through the day of her death . . . 
Shelina never operated our 2014 Ford Edge or our 2006 Ford F150 listed 
on the Policy.” Because Shelina was not an “operator”, the Glovers did not 
have to notify Allstate that she had moved in with them. Thus, Shelina 
was a “resident relative” as to whom the notice requirement did not 
apply, making her an “insured person” under the Glovers’ Allstate policy. 
III 
Next, we consider the policy’s anti-stacking clause and then turn to its 
offset clause. Applying our precedent, we hold first that Allstate’s anti-
stacking clause prevents only the aggregation of UIM policy limits; it does 
not bar aggregating more than one UIM recovery. Then, we hold that 
Allstate’s $100,000 per-person UIM limits are offset by the $75,000 the 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 20S-CT-23 | October 8, 2020 
Page 6 of 10 
Estate received from Hahn’s and Bogue’s liability insurers. These 
payments were made on behalf of the two drivers “legally responsible” 
for Shelina’s death. But Allstate’s UIM limits are not offset by the UIM 
payments the Estate received from Robinson’s and Shelina’s own policies. 
Unlike the liability payments, the UIM payments were not made on behalf 
of persons “legally responsible” for Shelina’s death. Thus, the Estate can 
recover $25,000 in excess UIM benefits under the Allstate policy as its total 
UIM recovery will still be less than the policy’s $100,000 UIM limits. 
A 
To “stack” multiple insurance policies is to allow the insured “to 
recover under all policies applicable to the loss (i.e., stack the policies) up 
to the total damages.” Wagner v. Yates, 912 N.E.2d 805, 812 (Ind. 2009). 
Under Indiana law, insurers can write UIM policies that ban such 
stacking. “The policy or endorsement affording [UIM] coverage … may 
provide that the total limit of all insurers’ liability arising out of any one 
(1) accident shall not exceed the highest limits under any one (1) policy 
applicable to the loss”. Ind. Code § 27-7-5-5(a). Anti-stacking clauses thus 
“limit coverage . . . so as to preclude stacking or double recovery of 
uninsured motorist coverages.” Wagner, 912 N.E.2d at 812 (quoting 
Progressive Ins. Co. v. Bullock, 841 N.E.2d 238, 240 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006)). 
Under the governing statute, these clauses can limit not only uninsured-
motorist (UM) coverage but also underinsured-motorist coverage (UIM). 
See I.C. § 27-7-5-5.  
The Glovers’ Allstate policy contains an anti-stacking clause, which 
says: 
The liability limits shown on the Policy Declarations for 
Uninsured Motorists Insurance may not be added to the limits 
for similar coverage applying to other motor vehicles to 
determine the limit of insurance coverage available. 
The Estate argues that this clause, which appears in the policy’s “Limits of 
Liability” section, means it can recover no more than $100,000 in 
aggregate UIM benefits— “the highest applicable [UIM] limit of liability”. 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 20S-CT-23 | October 8, 2020 
Page 7 of 10 
To date, the Estate has received only $50,000 in UIM payments, thus 
leaving, it argues, another $50,000 in potential UIM recovery under the 
policy. 
Allstate agrees that this provision is relevant to the anti-stacking 
question. But it insists the decisive language—which Allstate says “closely 
mirrors the language” of Section 27-7-5-5(a)—occurs elsewhere in the 
policy, in the section labeled “If There Is Other Insurance”. 
If more than one policy applies to the accident on a primary 
basis, the total benefits payable to any one person will not 
exceed the maximum benefits payable by the policy with the 
highest limit of uninsured motorists coverage. 
This provision, according to Allstate, compares an insured’s “total” 
recovery—here, the Estate’s liability and UIM settlements—with the 
highest UIM limit of any of the policies. Under Allstate’s approach, the 
Estate would be barred from further recovery because the highest UIM 
limit was $100,000 and the Estate has already recovered $125,000. 
We reject Allstate’s argument for two reasons. First, the record does 
not support invoking the provision on which Allstate relies. By its terms, 
this “total-benefits-payable” provision applies only if its condition 
precedent is satisfied—namely, that “more than one policy applies to the 
accident on a primary basis”. Allstate, however, did not designate 
evidence showing that more than one policy applied here on a primary 
basis. Specifically, it did not try to establish that more than one policy 
insured the vehicle in which Shelina was riding when she died. Without 
such evidence, this provision cannot support Allstate’s argument that the 
policy itself stands as an obstacle to the Estate’s claim. 
Second, our case law does not support Allstate’s argument. In 
American Economy Ins. Co. v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co., 605 N.E.2d 162 (Ind. 
1992), we affirmed the court of appeals’ decision to enforce anti-stacking 
provisions in two insurance policies after the insured received a liability 
settlement. Id. at 164–65. One policy had UIM limits of $60,000; the other 
had limits of $100,000. Despite the anti-stacking provisions, the trial court 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 20S-CT-23 | October 8, 2020 
Page 8 of 10 
held that the injured woman had $135,000 of UIM coverage available to 
her—$160,000 of aggregate UIM coverage less a $25,000 liability payment. 
The court of appeals disagreed, concluding the trial court had 
impermissibly stacked the limits of the two policies. American Econ. Ins. 
Co. v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co., 593 N.E.2d 1242, 1245 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992), 
aff’d in part, vacated in part. After unstacking the policies, the court held 
that the “maximum amount of [UIM] coverage available” was “$100,000, 
not $135,000”, id., and we agreed. 
[T]he trial court should observe that appellees would first 
have recourse against American as the primary insurer for 
its [UIM] coverage limits of $60,000, less the $25,000 already 
paid by Vernon in [sic] behalf of the tortfeasor. Next, 
appellees would have access to Motorists’ excess coverage of 
$100,000, less the $25,000 previously paid by Vernon. 
In no event, however, may appellees’ [UIM] coverage 
recoveries exceed the aggregate [UIM] coverage maximum 
of $100,000, consistent with the Court of Appeals[‘] 
interpretation of the “non-stacking” provisions of both 
policies. 
American Econ., 605 N.E.2d at 165 (footnote omitted) (emphasis added). 
We noted that valid anti-stacking provisions do not bar multiple “[UIM] 
coverage recoveries”, id.; they bar only multiple UIM recoveries from 
exceeding the “aggregate [UIM] coverage maximum”. See id. 
Consistent with American Economy, we hold that Allstate’s anti-
stacking provision likewise bars aggregating policy limits for UIM 
coverage but does not bar multiple UIM recoveries. Here, the Estate’s total 
UIM payments of $50,000 from the Robinson and Shelina policies are less 
than the Estate’s aggregate UIM maximum of $100,000 under her parents’ 
Allstate policy. Thus, the disputed anti-stacking provision does not 
prevent the Estate from obtaining further UIM recoveries of up to $50,000. 
B 
Finally, we consider whether the offset provision requires that sums 
paid to the Estate reduce Allstate’s UIM coverage. This provision says:  
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 20S-CT-23 | October 8, 2020 
Page 9 of 10 
The limits of this Uninsured Motorist Insurance shall be 
reduced by: [] all amounts paid or payable by or on behalf of 
any person or organization that may be legally responsible for 
the bodily injury for which the payment is made. 
At issue is the meaning of “legally responsible for the bodily injury for 
which the payment is made.”  
We considered this very question in American Economy and held that 
payments from someone “legally responsible” for injury referred “only to 
sums from those directly liable for causing the injur[y]”. 605 N.E.2d at 
165 n.5. Likewise, in Wagner we held that sums paid by those “legally 
liable” are “payments by or on behalf of those directly liable for causing 
the injur[y].” 912 N.E.2d at 810. In both cases, the disputed offset 
provisions required reduced coverage only for sums received for liability 
payments and not for UIM payments. See id. (noting the term “legally 
liable” does not “require reduction from amounts payable for sums from 
State Farm’s UIM coverage”); American Econ., 605 N.E.2d at 165 n.5 (noting 
the same for term “legally responsible”). 
Applying these precedents, we hold that Allstate’s offset provision 
reduces its UIM coverage only for the payments the Estate received on 
behalf of Kenneth Bogue and Matthew Hahn, the two men at fault 
(“legally responsible”) for the fatal accident. Bogue and Hahn were 
insured by Omni Insurance and Allstate, respectively, and these carriers 
paid the Estate $75,000 total in liability payments. Because that money was 
paid “by or on behalf of” someone “legally responsible” for the accident, it 
must be offset against the Allstate policy’s $100,000 UIM limit, thus 
reducing the limit to $25,000. The offset provision does not, however, 
further reduce that limit by the Estate’s receipt of UIM payments from 
American Family and GEICO, neither of which insured someone “legally 
responsible” for Shelina’s death. See Glover, 133 N.E.3d at 189. Because the 
Estate’s UIM settlements are not offset against the policy’s UIM limit, the 
Estate has an additional $25,000 UIM coverage available to it under the 
Allstate policy. 
 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 20S-CT-23 | October 8, 2020 
Page 10 of 10 
*          *          * 
For these reasons, we hold that the Estate is entitled to summary 
judgment on the issues of whether Shelina was an “insured person” and 
the availability of $25,000 in further UIM coverage under the parents’ 
Allstate policy. We vacate the trial court’s judgment and remand with 
instructions to grant the Estate’s cross-motion for summary judgment. 
Rush, C.J., and David, Massa, and Goff, JJ., concur. 
A TT O R N E YS F O R  AP P EL LA N T  
Nicholas C. Deets 
Tyler J. Zipes 
Hovde Dassow + Deets, LLC 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
A TT O R N E YS F O R  AP P EL LE E  
Christopher D. Cody 
Georgianna Q. Tutwiler 
Hume Smith Geddes Green & Simmons, LLP 
Indianapolis, Indiana