Interpleader – It appears to be appropriate for an insurance company insuring a tortfeasor against whom there are multiple claims exceeding the limits of insurance to use the interpleader process to pay its limits into the court, name the potential claimants and the insured as parties to the interpleader, and ask the court to be absolved of further duties of defense. Indiana courts have said that attempting to avoid providing a defense to the insured in this situation isn’t bad faith.
Underinsurance – There is no underinsured claim against an injured party’s own insurer where the “per accident” limits of both the insured and tortfeasor’s policies are the same.
The emotional distress claim of a passenger who witnesses injury of a driver is not a derivative claim. Therefore, the emotion distress claim isn’t combined with the driver’s injuries under the “per person” limits of a policy. A separate “per person” limit applies.
“Miss and run” language in policies that excludes coverage where there is no physical contact between the insured and the “miss and run” driver (who can’t be identified) is permissible.
UM/UIM coverage under umbrella policies – If you have an umbrella policy in excess of your auto policy, then the umbrella is supposed to provide UM/UIM coverage in the amount of the umbrella policy unless you reject it in writing. Where a husband signed a rejection but wife did not, the wife still got the UM/UIM coverage. (This may have subsequently been changed by statute).
Rental car policy’s exclusion of coverage for drunk driving was enforceable.
A policy provision that requires an insured to testify under oath is material and can be a basis for exclusion if the insured refuses. (Occasionally an insurer will find something fishy and can require you to testify under oath — even the 5th Amendment won’t save the coverage if you refuse to testify.)
The standard for winning a bad faith claim is very hard. If the insurer can demonstrate a good faith basis for denying a claim, a disgruntled insured is not going to get very far with the bad faith claim.
A small claims judgment against an insured won’t necessarily bar a subrogated insurer from bringing its own claim against the alleged tortfeasor. Despite anti-claim splitting and res judicata concerns, the insurer was allowed to bring its claim because it wasn’t sufficiently a party to the small claims action.
Where an insured signed an application saying she had no dogs, the insurance company was not required to provide coverage in a dog bit case even though the insured said that she had, in fact, told the insurance agent she had dogs and the agent should have known she had dogs.
There is no duty of an insurance agent to recommend particular kinds or amounts of insurance, but where the agent undertakes to provide that sort of advice, there is probably a duty to use reasonable skill, care, and diligence.
Leave a Reply