Court Opinion

ID: 9745934
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 13:43:15.962325+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:06.516241
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I fully concur in the holding that State Farm is not entitled to rely on the 1988 rejection of underinsured coverage after the new law went into effect in 1995. I further agree that failure to obtain Steu-ry's post-1995 rejection in writing renders State Farm liable to both Steury's estate and the Millers.
However, I must respectfully disagree with the majority's conclusion that "we need not determine whether the document entitled "Important Information About Un-derinsured Motor Vehicle Coverage' constituted an offer under Ind.Code § 27-7-5-2...." Op. at 472. That document, as quoted by the majority at op. 467, clearly and unmistakably constitutes an offer for such coverage.
I would therefore affirm the granting of the Summary Judgments in favor of the Estate and in favor of the Millers but would do so solely upon the basis that State Farm did not obtain from Steury a written rejection of the offered coverage.