Title: State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Jakubowicz

State: indiana

Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court

Document:

ATTO RNEYS 
FO R 
APPELLANT 
ATTO RNEY 
FO R 
APPELLEE 
Ti
m ot
hy 
M .
 
Swan 
Apr
i
l
 
L.
 
Edwar
ds 
Jenni
f
er
 
E.
 
Davi
s 
Boonvi
l
l
e,
 
I
ndi
ana 
G ar
an 
Lucow 
M i
l
l
er
,
 
P.
C.
 
M er
r
i
l
l
vi
l
l
e,
 
I
ndi
ana 
ATTO RNEYS 
FO R 
AM I
CUS 
CURI
AE.
 
THE 
I
NDI
ANA 
TRI
AL 
LAW YER7 
S ASSO CI
ATI
O N 
W i
l
l
i
am  
E.
 
W i
ni
ngham  
Jonat
hon 
B.
 
Noyes 
W i
l
l
son 
Kehoe 
W i
ni
ngham ,
 
LLC 
I
ndi
anapol
i
s,
 
I
ndi
ana 
Si
n 
t
he 
Zi
nni
ana 
éupr
em e 
Q ﬁuur
t
 
N0.
 
45$05-
1605-
CT-
00253 
STATE 
FARM  
M UTUAL 
AUTO M O BI
LE 
I
NSURANCE 
CO M PANY,
 
Appel
l
ant
 
(
Def
endant
 
bel
ow)
,
 
CARO L 
JAKUBO W I
CZ,
 
i
ndi
vi
dual
l
y 
And 
as Par
ent
 
and 
Legal
 
G uar
di
an 
of
 
JACO B 
JAKUBO W I
CZ 
and 
JO SEPH 
JAKUBO W I
CZ,
 
m i
nor
s,
 
Appel
l
ees (
Pl
ai
nt
i
ﬂs 
bel
ow)
.
 
Appeal
 
f
r
om  
t
he 
Lake 
Ci
r
cui
t
 
Cour
t
,
 
No.
 
45C01-
0810-
CT-
00156 
The 
Honor
abl
e 
G eor
ge 
C.
 
Par
as,
 
Judge 
O n 
Pet
i
t
i
on 
t
o 
Tr
ansf
er
 
f
r
om  
t
he 
I
ndi
ana 
Cour
t
 
of
 
Appeal
s,
 
N 
0.
 45A05-
1502-
CT-
00078 
Jul
y 
26,
 
2016 
Cor
r
ect
ed
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Jul 26 2016, 11:06 am
Davi
d,
 
Just
i
ce.
 
Thi
s 
m at
t
er
 
i
nvol
ves 
t
he 
i
nt
er
pr
et
at
i
on 
of
 
an aut
om obi
l
e 
i
nsur
ance 
pol
i
cy 
i
n 
t
he 
cont
ext
 
of
 
a per
sonal
 
i
nj
ur
y 
l
awsui
t
 
i
nvol
vi
ng 
an 
under
i
nsur
ed 
m ot
or
i
st
 
(
UI
M )
 
cl
ai
m .
 The 
pol
i
cy 
at
 i
ssue 
r
equi
r
es 
t
hat
 
a UI
M  
cl
ai
m  
be 
br
ought
 
wi
t
hi
n 
t
hr
ee 
(
3)
 
year
s of
 
t
he 
acci
dent
 
and 
al
so 
r
equi
r
es 
t
hat
 
t
he 
i
nsur
ed 
ﬁl
l
l
y 
com pl
y 
wi
t
h 
al
l
 
pr
ovi
si
ons 
of
 
t
he 
pol
i
cy 
pr
i
or
 
t
o 
br
i
ngi
ng 
sui
t
.
 O ne 
such 
pr
ovi
si
on 
i
s t
hat
 St
at
e Far
m  wi
l
l
 
onl
y 
pay i
f
 
t
he under
i
nsur
ed m ot
or
i
st
’
s i
nsur
ance has been exhaust
ed.
 
Because 
t
he 
pr
ovi
si
on 
r
equi
r
i
ng 
an 
i
nsur
ed 
t
o 
br
i
ng 
sui
t
 
wi
t
hi
n 
t
hr
ee 
(
3)
 
year
s 
i
s 
i
n 
di
r
ect
 
conﬂi
ct
 
wi
t
h 
t
he 
pol
i
cy’
s 
exhaust
i
on 
r
equi
r
em ent
,
 
we 
hol
d 
t
hat
 
t
he 
pol
i
cy 
i
s 
am bi
guous 
and 
t
hus,
 
m ust
 
be 
const
r
ued 
i
n 
f
avor
 
of
 
t
he 
i
nsur
ed.
 Accor
di
ngl
y,
 
we 
af
ﬁr
m  
t
he 
t
r
i
al
 
cour
t
’
s 
deni
al
 
of
 
St
at
e 
Fann’
s 
m ot
i
on 
f
or
 
sum m ar
y 
j
udgm ent
.
 
Fact
s 
and 
Pr
ocedur
al
 
Hi
st
or
y 
O n 
August
 
2,
 2007,
 
t
he 
J 
akubowi
czs 
(
m ot
her
,
 
Car
ol
,
 
and 
her
 
t
wo 
sons)
 
wer
e 
i
nvol
ved 
i
n a 
car
 acci
dent
 wi
t
h 
Ronal
d W i
l
l
i
am s 
t
hat
 
r
esul
t
ed i
n 
subst
ant
i
al
 i
nj
ur
i
es t
o t
he Jakubowi
czs.
 The 
J 
akubowi
czs 
wer
e 
i
nsur
ed 
by 
St
at
e 
Far
m .
 O n 
O ct
ober
 
7,
 
2008,
 
Car
ol
 
J 
akubowi
cz 
ﬁl
ed 
sui
t
 
agai
nst
 
W i
l
l
i
am s (
on her
 behal
f
 
and on behal
f
 
of
 
her
 sons)
.
 St
at
e Far
m  al
so ﬁl
ed 
a com pl
ai
nt
 agai
nst
 
W i
l
l
i
am s 
seeki
ng 
dam ages f
or
 
m edi
cal
 
and 
pr
oper
t
y 
dam age 
paym ent
s 
i
t
 
m ade 
as a r
esul
t
 
of
 
t
he 
acci
dent
.
 
I
n 
Decem ber
 
2009,
 
J 
akubowi
cz 
put
 
St
at
e Far
m ’
s 
counsel
 on 
not
i
ce 
t
hat
 
she 
woul
d 
l
i
kel
y 
pur
sue 
an 
under
i
nsur
ed 
m ot
or
i
st
 
(
U 
M )
 
cl
ai
m .
 However
,
 i
t
 
wasn’
t
 
unt
i
l
 
M ar
ch 
2011,
 
m or
e 
t
han 
t
hr
ee 
(
3)
 
year
s 
af
t
er
 
t
he 
acci
dent
,
 
t
hat
 
J 
akubowi
cz 
ﬁl
ed 
a 
m ot
i
on 
f
or
 
l
eave 
t
o 
am end 
her
 
com pl
ai
nt
 
and add a UI
M  
cl
ai
m  agai
nst
 St
at
e Far
m .
 I
n 
her
 m ot
i
on f
or
 
l
eave,
 Jakubowi
cz st
at
ed t
hat
 she 
bel
i
eved 
W i
l
l
i
am ’
s 
i
nsur
ance 
pol
i
cy 
woul
d 
be i
nsuf
ﬁci
ent
 
t
o cover
 
her
 
dam ages.
 The 
t
r
i
al
 cour
t
 
gr
ant
ed 
Jakubowi
cz’
s 
m ot
i
on 
f
or
 
l
eave 
t
o 
am end 
on 
Jul
y 
27,
 
2011.
 
Ther
eaf
t
er
,
 
St
at
e 
Far
m  
m oved 
f
or
 
sum m ar
y 
j
udgm ent
 
on 
t
he 
UI
M  
cl
ai
m  
ar
gui
ng 
t
hat
 
i
t
 
was 
bar
r
ed 
because i
t
 
was ﬁl
ed 
aﬁer
 
t
he t
hr
ee (
3)
 year
 l
i
m i
t
at
i
on 
per
i
od set
 f
or
t
h i
n Jakubowi
cz’
s 
i
nsur
ance pol
i
cy.
 Jakubowi
cz opposed St
at
e Far
m ’
s m ot
i
on,
 and t
he t
r
i
al
 
cour
t
 deni
ed i
t
.
 The 
Cour
t
 
of
 
Appeal
s 
accept
ed 
St
at
e Far
m ’
s 
di
scr
et
i
onar
y 
i
nt
er
l
ocut
or
y 
appeal
 
and 
r
ever
sed 
t
he t
r
i
al
 
cour
t
,
 
concl
udi
ng 
t
hat
 
J 
akubowi
cz’
s 
i
nsur
ance 
pol
i
cy 
was 
unam bi
guous 
and 
f
ur
t
her
,
 
t
hat
 
she 
f
ai
l
ed
t
o 
com pl
y 
wi
t
h 
t
he 
pol
i
cy’
s 
t
hr
ee 
(
3)
 
year
 
l
i
m i
t
at
i
on 
per
i
od 
f
or
 
ﬁl
i
ng 
t
he 
UI
M  
cl
ai
m .
 St
at
e 
Far
m  
M ut
.
 
Aut
o.
 
I
ns.
 
Co.
 
v.
 
J 
akubowi
cz,
 
45 
N.
E.
3d 
500,
 
506 
(
I
nd.
 
Ct
.
 
App.
 
2015)
,
 
vacat
ed.
 J 
akubowi
cz 
sought
 
t
r
ansf
er
,
 
whi
ch 
we 
gr
ant
ed,
 
t
her
eby 
vacat
i
ng 
t
he 
Cour
t
 
of
 
Appeal
s 
opi
ni
on.
 I
nd.
 
App.
 
Rul
e 
58(
A)
.
 
St
andar
d 
of
 
Revi
ew 
O r
der
s 
on 
sum m ar
y 
j
udgm ent
 
ar
e 
r
evi
ewed 
de 
novo 
and 
r
equi
r
e 
an 
appel
l
at
e 
cour
t
 
t
o 
appl
y 
t
he 
sam e 
st
andar
d 
of
 
r
evi
ew 
t
hat
 
i
s 
appl
i
ed 
by 
t
he 
t
r
i
al
 
cour
t
.
 AM  
G en.
 
LLC 
V.
 
Ar
m our
,
 
46 
N.
E.
3d 
436,
 
439 
(
I
nd.
 
2015)
 
(
ci
t
at
i
ons 
om i
t
t
ed.
)
 That
 
i
s,
 
t
o 
be 
ent
i
t
l
ed 
t
o 
sum m ar
y 
j
udgm ent
,
 
t
he 
m ovant
 
m ust
 
dem onst
r
at
e 
t
hat
 
“
t
he 
desi
gnat
ed 
evi
dence 
r
ai
ses 
no 
genui
ne 
i
ssue of
 
m at
er
i
al
 
f
act
 
and 
t
hat
 
t
he m ovi
ng 
par
t
y 
i
s ent
i
t
l
ed 
t
o 
j
udgm ent
 
as a m at
t
er
 of
 
l
aw.
”
 
I
_d.
 The 
bur
den 
t
hen shi
f
t
s 
t
o t
he 
nonm ovi
ng 
par
t
y 
who m ust
 dem onst
r
at
e t
hat
 t
her
e i
s a genui
ne i
ssue of
 
m at
er
i
al
 f
act
.
 I
_d.
 Al
l
 
r
easonabl
e 
i
nf
er
ences 
ar
e 
const
r
ued 
i
n 
f
avor
 
of
 
t
he 
nonm ovi
ng 
par
t
y.
 
I
i
i
.
 
Addi
t
i
onal
l
y,
 
“
[
a]
n 
i
nsur
ance 
pol
i
cy 
i
s 
a cont
r
act
,
 and 
as such 
i
s 
subj
ect
 
t
o 
t
he 
sam e 
r
ul
es 
of
 
const
r
uct
i
on 
as ot
her
 
cont
r
act
s.
”
 Dunn 
V.
 M er
i
di
an 
M ut
.
 
I
ns.
 C0.
,
 836 
N.
E.
2d 
249,
 
251 (
I
nd.
 
2005)
 (
ci
t
at
i
ons om i
t
t
ed)
.
 I
nt
er
pr
et
at
i
on of
 
a cont
r
act
 i
s a pur
e quest
i
on of
 
l
aw and t
hus,
 i
s 
r
evi
ewed 
de 
novo.
 Har
r
i
son 
V.
 Thom as 761 N.
E.
2d 
816,
 818 (
I
nd.
 
2002)
.
 
Di
scussi
on 
At
 
i
ssue 
i
n 
t
hi
s 
case 
i
s 
whet
her
 
t
he 
St
at
e 
Far
m  
pol
i
cy 
l
anguage,
 
wi
t
h 
r
egar
d 
t
o 
t
he 
pr
ocedur
e 
f
or
 
an 
i
nsur
ed 
t
o 
br
i
ng 
an 
under
i
nsur
ed 
m ot
or
i
st
 
cl
ai
m  
agai
nst
 
St
at
e 
Far
m ,
 
i
s 
am bi
guous.
 I
nsur
ance 
pol
i
ci
es 
wi
t
h 
di
r
ect
l
y 
conﬂi
ct
i
ng 
t
er
m s 
ar
e 
am bi
guous.
 
W er
t
 
V.
 M er
i
di
an 
Sec.
 I
ns.
 Com pany 997 
N.
E.
2d 1167,
 1171 (
I
nd.
 Ct
.
 App.
 2013)
.
 
W her
e t
her
e i
s am bi
gui
t
y,
 i
nsur
ance pol
i
ci
es ar
e 
const
r
ued 
st
r
i
ct
l
y 
agai
nst
 
t
he 
i
nsur
er
,
 
and 
t
he 
pol
i
cy 
l
anguage 
i
s 
Vi
ewed 
f
r
om  
t
he 
st
andpoi
nt
 
of
 
t
he 
i
nsur
ed.
 Al
l
st
at
e 
I
ns.
 
Co.
 
V.
 Dana 
Com ,
 
759 
N.
E.
2d 1049,
 1056 (
I
nd.
 
2001)
.
 Thi
s 
i
s especi
al
l
y 
t
r
ue 
W her
e 
t
he 
l
anguage 
i
n 
quest
i
on 
pur
por
t
s 
t
o 
excl
ude 
cover
age.
 USA 
Li
f
e 
O ne 
I
ns.
 
Co.
 of
 
I
nd.
 
V.
 Nuckol
l
s,
 
682 N.
E.
2d 
534,
 538 (
I
nd.
 1997)
.
 I
nsur
er
s ar
e f
r
ee t
o l
i
m i
t
 
t
he cover
age of
 
t
hei
r
 
pol
i
ci
es,
 but
 
such l
i
m i
t
at
i
ons 
m ust
 
be cl
ear
l
y 
expr
essed t
o be enf
or
ceabl
e.
 
W .
 Bend M ut
.
 v.
 
Keat
on,
 755 N.
E.
2d 652,
 654 (
I
nd.
 Ct
.
 App.
 2001)
,
 t
r
ans.
 deni
ed.
”
 W her
e pr
ovi
si
ons l
i
m i
t
i
ng
cover
age 
ar
e 
not
 
cl
ear
l
y 
and 
pl
ai
nl
y 
expr
essed,
 
t
he 
pol
i
cy 
wi
l
l
 
be 
const
r
ued 
m ost
 
f
avor
abl
y 
t
o 
t
he 
i
nsur
ed,
 t
o f
ur
t
her
 
t
he pol
i
cy'
s 
basi
c pur
pose of
 
i
ndem ni
t
y.
”
 M er
i
di
an 
M ut
.
 I
ns.
 Co.
 v.
 Aut
o-
 
O wner
s 
I
ns.
 Co.
,
 
698 
N.
E.
2d 
770,
 773 (
I
nd.
 1998)
.
 Fur
t
her
m or
e,
 
when 
const
r
ui
ng 
t
he 
l
anguage 
of
 
an 
i
nsur
ance 
pol
i
cy,
 
a cour
t
 
“
shoul
d 
const
r
ue 
t
he l
anguage of
 
an i
nsur
ance 
pol
i
cy 
so as not
 
t
o 
r
ender
 
any 
wor
ds,
 
phr
ases 
or
 
t
er
m s 
i
nef
f
ect
i
ve 
or
 
m eani
ngl
ess.
”
 W er
t
i
 
997 
N.
E.
2d 
at
 
1170 
(
ci
t
at
i
on 
om i
t
t
ed)
.
 
Her
e,
 
t
he 
pol
i
cy 
pr
ovi
des,
 
i
n 
r
el
evant
 
par
t
:
 
Deci
di
ng 
Faul
t
 
and 
Am ount
— .
 
.
 .
 [
UI
M ]
 
Vehi
cl
e 
Cover
age 
1.
 a.
 The 
i
nsur
ed 
and 
we 
m ust
 
agr
ee 
t
o 
t
he 
answer
s 
t
o 
t
he 
f
ol
l
owi
ng 
t
wo 
quest
i
ons:
 
(
1)
 I
s t
he i
nsur
ed l
egal
l
y ent
i
t
l
ed t
o r
ecover
 com pensat
or
y 
dam ages 
f
r
om  
t
he 
owner
 
or
 
dr
i
ver
 
of
 
t
he 
[
UM ]
 
vehi
cl
e? 
(
2)
 I
f
 
t
he answer
 t
o 1.
a.
(
1)
 above i
s yes,
 t
hen what
 i
s t
he 
am ount
 of
 
t
he com pensat
or
y dam ages t
hat
 t
he i
nsur
ed i
s l
egal
l
y 
ent
i
t
l
ed 
t
o 
r
ecover
 
f
r
om  
t
he 
owner
 
or
 
dr
i
ver
 
of
 
t
he 
.
 .
 .
 [
UI
M ]
 
vehi
cl
e? 
b.
 I
f
 
t
her
e 
i
s 
no 
agr
eem ent
 
on 
t
he 
answer
 
t
o 
ei
t
her
 
quest
i
on 
i
n 
1.
21 
above,
 
t
hen 
t
he 
i
nsur
ed 
shal
l
:
 
(
1)
 ﬁl
e a l
awsui
t
,
 i
n a st
at
e or
 f
eder
al
 cour
t
 t
hat
 has 
j
ur
i
sdi
ct
i
on 
agai
nst
:
 
(
a)
 
us;
 
(
b)
 
t
he 
owner
 
and 
dr
i
ver
 
of
 
t
he 
.
 .
 .
 [
UI
M ]
 
vehi
cl
e:
 
(
1)
 
unl
ess 
we 
have 
consent
ed 
t
o 
a 
set
t
l
em ent
 
of
f
er
 
pr
oposed 
by 
or
 
on 
behal
f
 
of
 
such 
owner
 
or
 
dr
i
ver
;
 
or
 
(
i
i
)
 
unl
ess 
such 
owner
 
or
 
dr
i
ver
 
i
s 
unknown;
 
and 
(
c)
 any 
ot
her
 
par
t
y 
or
 
par
t
i
es,
 
who 
m ay 
be 
l
egal
l
y 
l
i
abl
e 
f
or
 
t
he 
i
nsur
ed‘
s 
dam ages;
 
(
2)
 
consent
 
t
o 
a 
j
ur
y 
t
r
i
al
 
i
f
 
r
equest
ed 
by 
us;
 
(
3)
 agr
ee t
hat
 we m ay cont
est
 t
he i
ssues of
 
l
i
abi
l
i
t
y 
and t
he 
am ount
 
of
 
dam ages;
 
and 
(
4)
 
secur
e a 
j
udgm ent
 
i
n 
t
hat
 
act
i
on.
 The 
j
udgm ent
 
m ust
 
be 
t
he 
ﬁnal
 r
esul
t
 of
 
an act
ual
 t
r
i
al
 and any appeal
s,
 i
f
 
any appeal
s ar
e 
t
aken.
 
*
*
*
*
 
13.
 
Legal
 
Act
i
on 
Agai
nst
 
Us 
Legal
 
act
i
on 
m ay 
not
 
be 
br
ought
 
agai
nst
 
us 
unt
i
l
 
t
her
e 
has 
been 
ﬁl
l
l
 
com pl
i
ance 
wi
t
h 
al
l
 
t
he 
pr
ovi
si
ons 
of
 
t
hi
s 
pol
i
cy.
 
I
n 
addi
t
i
on,
 
l
egal
 
act
i
on 
m ay 
onl
y 
be 
br
ought
 
agai
nst
 
us 
r
egar
di
ng:
 
.
. .
c.
 .
 .
 .
 [
UI
M ]
 
Vehi
cl
e 
Cover
age i
f
 
t
he 
i
nsur
ed 
or
 
t
hat
 
i
nsur
ed'
s 
l
egal
 
r
epr
esent
at
i
ve 
wi
t
hi
n 
t
hr
ee 
year
s 
i
m m edi
at
el
y 
f
ol
l
owi
ng 
t
he 
dat
e 
of
 
t
he 
acci
dent
:
 
(
 
1)
 
pr
esent
s 
.
 .
 .
 an 
.
 .
 .
 [
UI
M ]
 
Vehi
cl
e 
Cover
age 
cl
ai
m  
t
o 
us;
 
and 
(
2)
 ﬁl
es a l
awsui
t
 i
n accor
dance wi
t
h 
t
he Deci
di
ng 
Faul
t
 
and 
Am ount
 
pr
ovi
si
on 
of
 
t
he 
i
nvol
ved 
cover
age.
 
Except
 
as 
pr
ovi
ded 
i
n 
c.
(
2)
 
above,
 
no 
ot
her
 
l
egal
 
act
i
on 
m ay 
be 
br
ought
 
agai
nst
 
us 
r
el
at
i
ng 
t
o 
.
 .
 .
 [
Ul
M ]
 
Vehi
cl
e 
Cover
age 
f
or
 
any 
ot
her
 
causes of
 
act
i
on 
t
hat
 
ar
i
se 
out
 
of
 
or
 
ar
e 
r
el
at
ed 
t
o 
t
hese 
cover
ages 
unt
i
l
 
t
her
e has been f
ul
l
 
com pl
i
ance wi
t
h 
t
he pr
ovi
si
ons t
i
t
l
ed 
Consent
 
t
o 
Set
t
l
em ent
 
and 
Deci
di
ng 
Faul
t
 
and 
Am ount
.
 
(
Appel
l
ant
’
s 
App.
 
at
 159— 60,
 177— 78)
 
(
som e 
i
nt
er
nal
 
em phasi
s 
om i
t
t
ed)
.
 
The 
pol
i
cy 
al
so 
pr
ovi
des:
 
[
UI
M ]
 
Vehi
cl
e 
Cover
age 
W e 
wi
l
l
 
pay 
com pensat
or
y 
dam ages f
or
 
bodi
l
y 
i
nj
ur
y 
an 
i
nsur
ed 
i
s 
l
egal
l
y 
ent
i
t
l
ed 
t
o 
r
ecover
 
f
r
om  
t
he 
owner
 
or
 
dr
i
ver
 
of
 
an [
UI
M ]
 
vehi
cl
e.
 The 
bodi
l
y 
i
nj
ur
y 
m ust
 
be:
 
a.
 sust
ai
ned 
by 
an 
I
nsur
ed,
 
and 
b.
 caused by 
an 
acci
dent
 
t
hat
 
i
nvol
ves 
t
he 
oper
at
i
on,
 
m ai
nt
enance,
 or
 
use of
 
an [
UHVI
]
 vehi
cl
e 
as a 
m ot
or
 
vehi
cl
e.
 
W e wi
l
l
 
pay 
onl
y 
i
f
 
t
he f
ul
l
 
am ount
 
of
 
al
l
 
avai
l
abl
e l
i
m i
t
s of
 
al
l
 
bodi
l
y 
i
nj
ur
y 
l
i
abi
l
i
t
y 
bonds,
 
pol
i
ci
es,
 
and 
sel
f
-
i
nsur
ance 
pl
ans 
t
hat
 
appl
y 
t
o 
t
he 
i
nsur
ed’
s 
bodi
l
y 
i
nj
ur
y 
have 
been 
used 
up 
by 
paym ent
 of
 
j
udgm ent
s 
0r
 
set
t
l
em ent
s,
 
or
 
have 
been 
of
f
er
ed 
t
o 
t
he 
i
nsur
ed 
i
n 
wr
i
t
i
ng.
 
(
Appel
l
ant
’
s 
App.
 
at
 159.
)
 
St
at
e Far
m  sought
 sum m ar
y 
j
udgm ent
 
because J 
akubowi
cz ﬁl
ed 
her
 UI
M  
cl
ai
m  
agai
nst
 
St
at
e Far
m  out
si
de of
 
t
he t
hr
ee (
3)
 year
 l
i
m i
t
at
i
on 
per
i
od 
pr
ovi
ded i
n t
he pol
i
cy.
 The pol
i
cy 
pr
ovi
des t
hat
 a UI
M  cl
ai
m  agai
nst
 St
at
e Far
m  “
m ay onl
y 
be br
ought
.
 .
 
.
 wi
t
hi
n 
t
hr
ee year
s 
i
m m edi
at
el
y f
ol
l
owi
ng t
he dat
e of
 
t
he acci
dent
.
”
 (
Appel
l
ant
’
s App.
 at
 177.
)
 
However
,
 
Jakubowi
cz ar
gues t
he pol
i
cy 
l
anguage i
s am bi
guous,
 and as such,
 t
he l
i
m i
t
at
i
on 
pr
ovi
si
on i
s 
unenf
or
ceabl
e,
 
because 
on 
one 
hand,
 
t
he 
pol
i
cy 
pr
ohi
bi
t
s 
i
nsur
eds 
f
r
om  
ﬁl
i
ng 
sui
t
 
m or
e 
t
han 
t
hr
ee 
(
3)
 
year
s af
t
er
 
t
he 
dat
e of
 
t
he 
acci
dent
,
 and 
on 
t
he 
ot
her
,
 i
t
 
r
equi
r
es 
t
hat
 
l
egal
 
act
i
on 
m ay 
not
 
be 
br
ought
 
unt
i
l
 
t
her
e 
has 
been “
f
ul
l
 
com pl
i
ance 
wi
t
h 
al
l
 
t
he 
pr
ovi
si
ons 
of
 
t
hi
s 
pol
i
cy.
”
 (
l
d.
)
 O ne 
such pr
ovi
si
on 
pr
ovi
des t
hat
:
 “
W e 
wi
l
l
 
pay 
onl
y 
i
f
 
t
he ﬁl
l
 
am ount
 of
 
al
l
 avai
l
abl
e l
i
m i
t
s 
of
 
al
l
 
bodi
l
y 
i
nj
ur
y 
l
i
abi
l
i
t
y 
bonds,
 
pol
i
ci
es,
 
and 
sel
f
-
i
nsur
ance 
pl
ans 
t
hat
 
appl
y 
t
o 
t
he 
i
nsur
ed’
s 
bodi
l
y
i
nj
ur
y 
have 
been 
used 
up 
by 
paym ent
 of
 
j
udgm ent
s or
 
set
t
l
em ent
s,
 or
 
have 
been of
f
er
ed 
t
o t
he 
i
nsur
ed i
n wr
i
t
i
ng.
”
 (
Appel
l
ant
’
s App.
 at
 159.
)
 J 
akubowi
cz ar
gues t
hat
 t
hi
s am ount
s t
o an 
exhaust
i
on 
r
equi
r
em ent
 
and 
as such,
 
t
he 
pol
i
cy 
l
anguage 
pot
ent
i
al
l
y 
r
equi
r
es 
i
nsur
eds 
t
o ﬁl
e 
sui
t
 
bef
or
e 
t
hey 
ar
e i
n 
f
ul
l
 
com pl
i
ance 
wi
t
h 
t
he 
pol
i
cy.
1 Thus,
 
as Am i
cus,
 
t
he 
I
ndi
ana 
Tr
i
al
 
Lawyer
’
s 
Associ
at
i
on,
 
obser
ved:
 
“
[
i
]
nsur
eds 
ar
e 
si
m ul
t
aneousl
y 
t
ol
d 
t
hat
 
t
hey 
m ust
 
ﬁl
e 
a 
l
awsui
t
 
and 
cannot
 
ﬁl
e 
a 
l
awsui
t
.
”
 (
Am i
cus 
Br
i
ef
 
at
 
8.
)
 
J 
akubowi
cz 
al
so 
ar
gues 
t
hat
 
t
he 
exhaust
i
on 
r
equi
r
em ent
 
i
n 
t
hi
s 
case 
i
s 
subst
ant
i
al
l
y 
si
m i
l
ar
 
t
o 
t
he 
one 
i
n m  
997 
N.
E.
2d 
at
 1170-
1171.
 I
n m ,
 
t
he 
Cour
t
 
of
 
Appeal
s 
hel
d 
t
hat
 
a 
M er
i
di
an 
i
nsur
ance 
pol
i
cy,
 
whi
ch 
cont
ai
ned 
a t
wo 
(
2)
 
year
 
l
i
m i
t
at
i
ons 
per
i
od 
f
or
 
pur
sui
ng 
an 
under
i
nsur
ed 
m ot
or
i
st
 
cl
ai
m ,
 
was 
am bi
guous 
as t
o 
whet
her
 
t
he 
i
nsur
eds 
wer
e 
r
equi
r
ed 
t
o ﬁr
st
 
pur
sue 
a cl
ai
m  
t
o 
r
ecover
 
t
he 
l
i
m i
t
s 
of
 
t
he 
t
or
t
f
easor
’
s 
l
i
abi
l
i
t
y 
cover
age 
pr
i
or
 
t
o 
ﬁl
i
ng 
sui
t
 
agai
nst
 
t
hei
r
 
own 
i
nsur
er
 
(
M er
i
di
an)
.
 m .
 
at
 1171.
 Speci
ﬁcal
l
y,
 
i
n 
addi
t
i
on 
t
o 
t
he 
t
wo 
(
2)
 
year
 
l
i
m i
t
at
i
ons 
per
i
od,
 
t
he 
W er
t
 
pol
i
cy 
pr
ovi
ded:
 “
No 
l
egal
 
act
i
on 
m ay 
be 
br
ought
 
agai
nst
 
us unt
i
l
 
t
her
e 
has 
been 
f
ul
l
 
com pl
i
ance 
wi
t
h 
t
he 
t
er
m s 
of
 
t
he 
pol
i
cy.
”
 m ,
 
997 
N.
E.
2d 
at
 1170.
 I
t
 
al
so 
pr
ovi
ded:
 
“
W e 
wi
l
l
 
pay 
dam ages 
under
 
t
hi
s 
cover
age 
.
 .
 .
onl
y 
i
f
 
[
t
he 
t
or
t
f
easor
’
s 
l
i
m i
t
s 
ar
e 
exhaust
ed]
 E.
 
at
 
1171.
 The m  
panel
 
f
ound t
hat
 because t
he exhaust
i
on r
equi
r
em ent
 was i
n di
r
ect
 conﬂi
ct
 wi
t
h 
t
he t
wo (
2)
 year
s 
l
i
m i
t
at
i
ons 
per
i
od,
 
t
he 
pol
i
cy 
was 
am bi
guous.
 E.
 
Her
e,
 t
he t
r
i
al
 cour
t
 deni
ed St
at
e Far
m ‘
s m ot
i
on f
or
 
sum m ar
y 
j
udgm ent
 and seem i
ngl
y 
agr
eed 
wi
t
h 
J 
akubowi
cz 
t
hat
 
t
he 
pol
i
cy 
cont
ai
ned 
conﬂi
ct
i
ng 
pr
ovi
si
ons,
 
as i
t
 
advi
sed 
St
at
e 
Far
m :
 
1 Jakubowi
cz al
so ar
gues t
hat
 hol
di
ng 
t
hat
 at
t
or
neys ar
e r
equi
r
ed t
o ﬁl
e 
sui
t
 pr
i
or
 
t
o expi
r
at
i
on of
 
t
he 
l
i
m i
t
at
i
ons 
per
i
od,
 
but
 
bef
or
e 
t
hey 
know 
i
f
 
t
her
e 
i
s 
a 
UI
M  
Cl
ai
m ,
 
woul
d 
pot
ent
i
al
l
y 
cause 
at
t
or
neys 
t
o 
choose 
bet
ween 
I
ndi
ana 
Rul
e 
of
 
Pr
of
essi
onal
 
Conduct
 
3.
1 and 
pr
ot
ect
i
ng 
t
hei
r
 
cl
i
ent
’
s 
i
nt
er
est
s.
 I
ndi
ana 
Rul
e 
of
 
Pr
of
essi
onal
 
Conduct
 
3.
1 pr
ovi
des 
i
n 
r
el
evant
 
par
t
:
 
A 
l
awyer
 
shal
l
 
not
 
br
i
ng 
or
 
def
end 
a pr
oceedi
ng,
 or
 
asser
t
 or
 
cont
r
ovcr
t
 
an 
i
ssue 
t
her
ei
n,
 
unl
ess 
t
her
e i
s 
a basi
s i
n 
l
aw 
and 
f
act
 
f
or
 
doi
ng 
so t
hat
 
i
s 
not
 
f
r
i
vol
ous,
 
whi
ch 
i
ncl
udes 
a 
good 
f
ai
t
h 
ar
gum ent
 
f
or
 
an 
ext
ensi
on,
 
m odi
ﬁcat
i
on 
or
 
r
ever
sal
 
of
 
exi
st
i
ng 
l
aw.
 
Because we hol
d t
hat
 t
he pol
i
cy l
anguage at
 i
ssue i
s am bi
guous,
 we need not
 addr
ess Jakubowi
cz’
s 
ar
gum ent
 
i
n 
t
hi
s 
r
egar
d.
[
Y]
ou coul
d have easi
l
y 
j
ust
 
wr
i
t
t
en 
t
he pol
i
cy 
t
o say i
f
 
t
her
e’
s an 
uni
nsur
ed 
or
 
[
UI
M ]
 
cl
ai
m  
ar
i
si
ng 
out
 
of
 
any 
i
nci
dent
,
 
you 
m ust
 
br
i
ng a 
cause of
 
act
i
on 
agai
nst
 
us i
n 
t
hr
ee 
year
s,
 
per
i
od.
 End 
of
 
st
or
y.
 Doesn’
t
 
have 
t
o 
say 
anyt
hi
ng 
el
se 
but
 
t
hat
.
 
But
,
 
you 
chose 
t
o 
add 
al
l
 
t
hese 
ot
her
 
condi
t
i
ons 
and 
l
i
m i
t
i
ng 
f
act
or
s.
 
(
Tr
.
 
at
 
35.
)
 
However
,
 t
he Cour
t
 of
 
Appeal
s r
ever
sed t
he t
r
i
al
 cour
t
,
 di
st
i
ngui
shi
ng m  
f
r
om  t
he 
pr
esent
 m at
t
er
.
 I
t
 
com par
ed 
t
he pol
i
ci
es and st
at
ed 
t
hat
 
“
none of
 
t
he l
anguage i
n 
St
at
e Far
m ’
s 
pol
i
cy 
woul
d 
suppor
t
 
J 
akubowi
cz’
s 
ar
gum ent
 
t
hat
 
she 
was 
r
equi
r
ed 
t
o 
wai
t
 
bef
or
e 
ﬁl
i
ng 
her
 
cl
ai
m  
agai
nst
 t
he under
i
nsur
ed m ot
or
i
st
 cover
age unt
i
l
 t
he l
i
m i
t
s of
 
W i
l
l
i
am s’
 i
nsur
ance had been 
exhaust
ed.
”
 Jakubowi
cz,
 
45 N.
E.
3d 
at
 
505.
 I
t
 
r
easoned 
t
hat
 
t
he 
St
at
e Far
m  
pol
i
cy 
car
ves out
 
an 
“
except
i
on”
 
f
or
 
a 
UI
M  
cl
ai
m .
 That
 
i
s,
 
W hi
l
e 
t
he 
St
at
e 
Far
m  
pol
i
cy 
r
equi
r
es 
Jakubowi
cz 
t
o 
at
t
em pt
 
t
o set
t
l
e (
wi
t
h St
at
e Far
m )
 as t
o W het
her
 Jakubowi
cz i
s ent
i
t
l
ed t
o r
ecover
 dam ages f
r
om  t
he 
al
l
egedl
y 
under
i
nsur
ed 
t
or
t
f
easor
 
(
her
e,
 
W i
l
l
i
am s)
,
 
t
hi
s 
r
equi
r
em ent
 
does 
not
 
pr
event
 
J 
akubowi
cz 
f
r
om  
ﬁl
i
ng 
a l
awsui
t
 
wi
t
hi
n 
t
he 
t
hr
ee 
(
3)
 
year
s.
 I
nst
ead,
 i
t
 
pr
ovi
des 
t
hat
 
i
f
 
Jakubowi
cz 
di
sagr
ees 
wi
t
h 
St
at
e 
Far
m  
about
 
whet
her
 
t
her
e 
i
s 
a 
UI
M  
cl
ai
m  
and 
t
he 
am ount
 
of
 
such 
cl
ai
m ,
 
t
hen 
she 
“
shal
l
 
ﬁl
e 
a 1awsui
t
[
.
]
”
 E.
 
I
t
 
i
s 
t
r
ue 
t
hat
 
t
he 
St
at
e 
Far
m  
pol
i
cy 
cont
ai
ns 
a 
pr
ovi
si
on 
al
l
owi
ng 
f
or
 
t
he 
par
t
i
es 
t
o 
r
each 
an 
agr
eem ent
 
pr
i
or
 
t
o 
ﬁl
i
ng 
sui
t
 
and 
set
t
i
ng 
f
or
t
h 
t
he 
pr
ocedur
e 
f
or
 
ﬁl
i
ng 
sui
t
,
 i
f
 
necessar
y,
 t
hat
 
m ay 
not
 
have 
been 
par
t
 
of
 
t
he 
pol
i
cy 
i
n 
M .
 
I
t
 
i
s 
al
so 
t
r
ue 
t
hat
 
t
hi
s 
pr
ovi
si
on 
of
 
t
he 
St
at
e 
Far
m  
pol
i
cy 
pr
ovi
des 
t
hat
 
t
he 
i
nsur
ed 
“
shal
l
”
 
ﬁl
e 
sui
t
 i
f
 
an 
agr
eem ent
 
can 
be 
r
eached.
 However
,
 i
t
 
i
s 
uncl
ear
 
how 
t
he 
pr
ovi
si
on 
set
t
i
ng 
f
or
t
h 
a pr
ocedur
e f
or
 
at
t
em pt
i
ng 
t
o r
esol
ve 
a UI
M  
cl
ai
m  
pr
i
or
 
t
o 
ﬁl
i
ng 
sui
t
 
cr
eat
es 
a m eani
ngﬁﬂ 
di
st
i
nct
i
on 
bet
ween 
t
he 
t
wo 
pol
i
ci
es 
such 
t
hat
 
J 
akubowi
cz 
woul
d 
not
 
be 
ent
i
t
l
ed 
t
o 
t
he 
sam e 
ﬁndi
ng 
t
hat
 
t
he 
pol
i
cy 
i
s am bi
guous 
as i
n 
m .
 
I
ndeed,
 
t
he 
t
wo 
pol
i
ci
es 
ar
e 
subst
ant
i
al
l
y 
si
m i
l
ar
.
 Bot
h 
pol
i
ci
es 
cont
ai
n 
a 
l
i
m i
t
at
i
ons 
per
i
od 
f
or
 
when 
t
he 
i
nsur
ed 
m ay 
br
i
ng a 
UHVI
 cl
ai
m .
 Bot
h 
pol
i
ci
es 
al
so cont
ai
n 
pr
ovi
si
ons 
r
equi
r
i
ng 
f
ul
l
 
com pl
i
ance 
wi
t
h 
t
he 
pol
i
cy 
and 
exhaust
i
on 
of
 
t
he 
t
or
t
f
easor
’
s 
i
nsur
ance 
pr
i
or
 
t
o 
t
he 
i
nsur
er
 
payi
ng 
UI
M  
dam ages.
 The 
l
anguage 
i
n 
t
he 
St
at
e 
Far
m  
pol
i
cy 
t
hat
 
t
he 
i
nsur
ed 
“
shal
l
”
 
ﬁl
e 
sui
t
 
i
s 
i
n 
di
r
ect
 
conﬂi
ct
 
wi
t
h 
ot
her
 
pr
ovi
si
ons 
of
 
t
he 
pol
i
cy 
t
hat
 
pr
ovi
de 
t
hat
 
t
he 
i
nsur
ed 
m ay 
not
 
r
ecover
 
f
r
om  
St
at
e 
Far
m  
unt
i
l
 
t
he 
i
nsur
ed 
i
s i
n
f
ul
l
 
com pl
i
ance wi
t
h 
al
l
 
pol
i
cy 
pr
ovi
si
ons whi
ch 
i
ncl
udes exhaust
i
on of
 
t
he t
or
t
f
easor
’
s 
pol
i
cy 
l
i
m i
t
s.
 
St
at
e 
Far
m  
ar
gues 
t
hat
 
t
he 
exhaust
i
on 
pr
ovi
si
on 
does 
not
 
i
m pact
 
whet
her
 
and 
when 
a sui
t
 
i
s ﬁl
ed,
 
but
 
onl
y 
when 
an 
i
nsur
ed 
wi
l
l
 
be 
pai
d.
 Thus,
 i
t
 
ar
gues 
J 
akubowi
cz 
coul
d 
have 
ﬁl
ed 
sui
t
 
pr
i
or
 
t
o 
t
he 
t
hr
ee 
(
3)
 
year
 
l
i
m i
t
at
i
ons 
per
i
od.
 However
,
 
t
hi
s 
ar
gum ent
 
f
ai
l
s 
because 
t
he m  
pol
i
cy 
al
so 
cont
ai
ns 
l
anguage 
t
hat
 
t
he 
i
nsur
er
 
“
wi
l
l
 
pay.
 
.
 .
 onl
y 
i
f
”
 
and 
yet
,
 
t
he m  
panel
 
st
i
l
l
 
f
ound 
t
he 
pol
i
cy 
t
o 
be am bi
guous.
 m  
997 
N.
E.
2d 
at
 1171.
 Fur
t
her
,
 
under
 
t
he t
er
m s of
 
t
he St
at
e Far
m  
pol
i
cy,
 i
f
 
t
he 
par
t
i
es cannot
 
agr
ee,
 t
he onl
y 
way 
f
or
 
an i
nsur
ed 
t
o get
 
pai
d 
i
s t
o ﬁl
e 
sui
t
.
 Thus,
 
paym ent
 
i
s 
not
 
as 
separ
at
e 
f
r
om  
ﬁl
i
ng 
sui
t
 
as St
at
e 
Far
m  
ar
gues.
 
St
at
e Far
m  
al
so at
t
em pt
s 
t
o ci
r
cum vent
 
t
he exhaust
i
on 
r
equi
r
em ent
 
by 
ar
gui
ng 
t
hat
 
“
f
ul
l
 
com pl
i
ance”
 does not
 i
ncl
ude exhaust
i
on because t
he i
nsur
ed has no cont
r
ol
 over
 what
 t
he 
under
i
nsur
ed 
m ot
or
i
st
 
wi
l
l
 
do or
 
when 
t
he 
under
i
nsur
ed wi
l
l
 
exhaust
 
t
hei
r
 
l
i
m i
t
s.
 (
Response t
o 
Pet
i
t
i
on 
t
o 
Tr
ansf
er
 
at
 
4.
)
 Thus,
 
St
at
e 
Far
m  
ar
gues 
t
hat
 
an 
i
nsur
ed 
can 
be 
i
n 
f
ul
l
 
com pl
i
ance 
wi
t
h 
t
he 
pol
i
cy 
pr
ovi
si
ons 
pr
i
or
 
t
o 
t
he 
under
i
nsur
ed 
m ot
or
i
st
’
s 
i
nsur
ance 
bei
ng 
exhaust
ed.
 However
,
 
t
hi
s 
r
eadi
ng 
of
 
t
he 
pol
i
cy 
l
anguage 
i
s 
a 
st
r
et
ch.
 The 
pol
i
cy 
m akes 
no 
except
i
on 
or
 
car
ve-
out
s 
t
hat
 
al
l
ow 
f
or
 
an 
i
nsur
ed 
t
o 
not
 
exhaust
 
t
he 
under
i
nsur
ed’
s 
pol
i
cy 
l
i
m i
t
s 
bef
or
e 
ﬁl
i
ng 
sui
t
.
 I
nst
ead,
 
t
he 
l
anguage i
s unequi
vocal
 t
hat
 St
at
e Far
m  wi
l
l
 “
pay onl
y i
f
”
 
t
he t
or
t
f
easor
’
s pol
i
cy l
i
m i
t
s ar
e 
exhaust
ed.
 (
Appel
l
ant
’
s 
App.
 
at
 159.
)
 Thi
s 
exhaust
i
on 
r
equi
r
em ent
 
i
s 
i
n 
di
r
ect
 
conﬂi
ct
 
wi
t
h 
t
he 
r
equi
r
em ent
 
t
hat
 
Jakubowi
cz 
br
i
ng 
sui
t
 
W i
t
hi
n 
t
hr
ee 
(
3)
 
year
s.
 
Concl
usi
on 
Jakubowi
cz’
s 
St
at
e Far
m  
pol
i
cy 
i
s subst
ant
i
al
l
y 
si
m i
l
ar
 
t
o t
he 
pol
i
cy 
i
n m .
 
Li
ke 
t
he 
pol
i
cy 
i
n m ,
 
Jakubowi
cz’
s 
pol
i
cy 
i
s 
am bi
guous 
t
o 
ext
ent
 
t
hat
 
i
t
 
cont
ai
ns 
conﬂi
ct
i
ng 
pr
ovi
si
ons.
 
As 
t
he 
t
r
i
al
 
cour
t
 
obser
ved,
 
t
he 
pol
i
cy 
coul
d 
have 
j
ust
 
st
at
ed 
t
hat
 
sui
t
 
m ust
 
be 
br
ought
 
wi
t
hi
n 
t
hr
ee 
(
3)
 
year
s.
 The 
pol
i
cy 
al
so coul
d 
have cal
l
ed f
or
 
exhaust
i
on 
of
 
t
he 
pol
i
cy 
l
i
m i
t
s 
pr
i
or
 
t
o ﬁl
i
ng a 
UI
M  
cl
ai
m  agai
nst
 St
at
e Far
m  W i
t
hout
 a l
i
m i
t
at
i
on on t
he t
i
m e t
o do so.
 I
nst
ead,
 t
he pol
i
cy 
cont
ai
ned a l
i
m i
t
at
i
on 
per
i
od 
as wel
l
 as addi
t
i
onal
 condi
t
i
ons.
 Those condi
t
i
ons—  t
hat
 “
[
l
]
egal
 
act
i
on 
m ay 
not
 
be 
br
ought
 
agai
nst
 
us 
unt
i
l
 
t
her
e 
has 
been 
f
ul
l
 
com pl
i
ance 
wi
t
h 
al
l
 
t
he 
pr
ovi
si
ons
of
 
t
hi
s 
pol
i
cy”
 and 
“
[
w]
e 
wi
l
l
 
pay 
onl
y 
i
f
 
t
he 
f
ul
l
 
am ount
 
of
 
al
l
 
avai
l
abl
e 
l
i
m i
t
s 
of
 
al
l
 
bodi
l
y 
i
nj
ur
y 
l
i
abi
l
i
t
y 
bonds,
 pol
i
ci
es,
 and sel
f
-
i
nsur
ance 
pl
ans t
hat
 appl
y 
t
o t
he i
nsur
ed’
s bodi
l
y 
i
nj
ur
y 
have 
been used up by 
paym ent
 of
 
j
udgm ent
s or
 set
t
l
em ent
s,
 or
 
have been of
f
er
ed t
o t
he i
nsur
ed i
n 
wr
i
t
i
ng”
 
conﬂi
ct
 
wi
t
h 
t
he 
t
hr
ee 
(
3)
 
year
 
l
i
m i
t
at
i
on 
per
i
od.
 (
Appel
l
ant
’
s 
App.
 
at
 177,
 159.
)
 
As St
at
e Far
m  
obser
ved,
 t
he i
nsur
ed 
has no cont
r
ol
 
over
 
W het
her
 
or
 
when 
t
he 
t
or
t
f
easor
 
of
f
er
s pol
i
cy 
l
i
m i
t
s.
 Thus,
 t
her
e ar
e si
t
uat
i
ons,
 l
i
ke 
i
n 
t
hi
s 
case,
 wher
e t
he i
nsur
ed 
cannot
 bot
h 
exhaust
 
t
he 
t
onf
easor
’
s 
pol
i
cy 
l
i
m i
t
s 
and 
ﬁl
e 
a 
UI
M  
sui
t
 
wi
t
hi
n 
t
he 
t
hr
ee 
(
3)
 
year
 
l
i
m i
t
at
i
on 
per
i
od.
 
Am bi
guous 
i
nsur
ance 
pol
i
ci
es 
ar
e 
const
r
ued 
agai
nst
 
t
he 
i
nsur
er
.
 Accor
di
ngl
y,
 
we 
af
ﬁr
m  
t
he 
t
r
i
al
 
cour
t
’
s 
deni
al
 of
 
St
at
e Far
m ’
s 
m ot
i
on 
f
or
 
sum m ar
y 
j
udgm ent
 
and 
r
em and 
t
he m at
t
er
 f
or
 
ﬁl
r
t
her
 
pr
oceedi
ngs 
consi
st
ent
 
wi
t
h 
t
hi
s 
opi
ni
on.
 
Rush,
 
C.
J.
,
 
Rucker
,
 
M assa 
and 
Sl
aught
er
,
 
J 
.
J 
.
,
 concur
.