Court Opinion

ID: 9710090
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:01:46.433956+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:54.145661
License: Public Domain

RILEY, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
In State Farm Auto Insurance Co. v. Alexander (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 397, 583 N.E.2d 309, the Ohio supreme court held, on facts similar to this case, that restriction of uninsured and underinsured coverage was contrary to the statute mandating such coverage. The court noted that the purpose of the statute was to ensure that a victim of an accident involving an uninsured or underin-sured driver would receive compensation under her own policy. 583 N.E.2d at 312.
In the present case, the majority attempts to distinguish Alexander by characterizing our statute as fundamentally different than the Ohio statute. In so doing, the majority states that "the Ohio legislature premised its uninsured/underinsured motorist statute on the tort-feasor's legal liability to the insured, and not on whether the vehicle at fault was insured." Opinion at 202-208. (emphasis in original).
The applicable Indiana statutes are IND. CODE 27-7-5-2(a)(1) and I.C. 27-7-5-4(b). T.C. 27-7-5-2(2)(1) provides that victims may recover from either owners or operators of underinsured vehicles. I.C. 27-7-5-4(b) defines an underinsured vehicle as an insured vehicle "where the limits of coverage available for payment to the insured [victim] ... are less than the limits for the insured's [victim's] underinsured motorist coverage at the time of the accident...." The plain wording of the two sections, when read together, establish that a victim who has under-insurance coverage may recover pursuant to that coverage when she is injured by the negligence of an owner of an underin-sured vehicle.
While it is true that Clements was the operator of Julie's vehicle at the time of the accident, he was also the owner of his own underinsured vehicle. Under our statutes, Julie's estate is entitled to recovery under her own underinsured coverage because her death resulted from the negligence of the owner of an underinsured vehicle.
*204In my opinion, the intent of our statute and the Ohio statute is the same-to require insurance companies to provide coverage for those injured by underinsured drivers. Accordingly, I would adopt the Ohio court's reasoning and would find that Julie's estate is entitled to receive the benefit of her under-insured coverage.