 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dunn v. Meridian Mutual Insurance Co.10/27/2005
n v. Thomas, 761 N.E.2d 816, 818 (Ind. 2002); State ex rel. Pope v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 145 S.W.3d 529, 533 (Tenn. 2004). If its terms are clear and unambiguous, courts must give those terms their clear and ordinary meaning. Am. States Ins. Co. v. Kiger, 662 N.E.2d 945, 947 (Ind. 1996); Ralph v. Pipkin, No. 2004-0179-COA-R3-CV, 2005 Tenn. App. LEXIS 287, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 17, 2005). Courts should interpret a contract so as to harmonize its provisions, rather than place them in conflict. Whitaker v. Brunner, 814 N.E.2d 288, 294 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied; S. Cast Stone Co. v. Adams, No. 1369, 1990 Tenn. App. LEXIS 862, at *15 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 12, 1990). When interpreting an insurance contract courts must look at the contract as a whole. Meridian Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ritchie, 540 N.E.2d 27, 29 (Ind. 1989); Ind. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Imel, 817 N.E.2d 299, 304 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004); Winfree v. Educators Credit Union, 900 S.W.2d 285, 289 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995).
The law governing UIM coverage is also the same for these purposes. Like Indiana, Tennessee requires insurers to offer UIM coverage to its drivers. See Ind. Code § 27-7-5-3 (2004); Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-7-1201 (2005). The purpose of UIM statutes "is to protect drivers from uninsured and under-insured motorists." Gaston v. Tenn. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 120 S.W.3d 815, 821 (Tenn. 2003). Accord Corr v. Am. Family Ins., 767 N.E.2d 535, 540 (Ind. 2002) (The purpose of UIM statutes "is to give the insured the recovery he or she would have received if the underinsured motorist had maintained an adequate policy of liability insurance." (citing 12 Lee R. Russ & Thomas F. Segalla, Couch on Insurance 3d § 171:2 (1995))); Kirk v. Lowe, 70 S.W.3d 77, 80 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) (UIM statutes "gives the insured motorist the protection he would have had if the alleged tortfeasor had assumed his own financial responsibility by purchasing liability insurance."). Thus, UIM coverage gives the victim of an accident with an uninsured motorist the right to recover the damages the victim would have recovered from the uninsured motorist, up to the limits of the UIM coverage liability.
In sum, although we conclude that Tennessee's UIM statute and Tennessee doctrines of contract interpretation govern this case, the parties do not suggest any difference between the law of Indiana and that of Tennessee, and we see no basis to conclude that there is any.
UIM Coverage for Diminished Value
Dunn contends that Part C of his policy, entitled "Uninsured Motorists Coverage" applies to his claim. Part C provides:
A. We will pay compensatory damages which an "insured" is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an "uninsured motor vehicle" because of:
1. "Bodily injury " sustained by an "insured" and caused by an accident; and
2. "Property damage" caused by an accident if the Schedule of Declarations indicates that both bodily injury and property damage Uninsured Motorists Coverage applies.
Meridian responds that it paid Dunn's claim under its collision ("Part D-Coverage for Damage to Your Auto") coverage. Meridian argues that under Part D Meridian's liability is limited to:
he lesser of the:
1. Actual cash value of the stolen or damage property; or
2. Amount necessary to repair or replace the property with other property of like kind and quality.
This "Limit of Liability" provision applies by its terms only to "Part D" i.e., to the collision coverage. It does not, therefore, come into play as to UIM ("Part C") coverage.
The Court of Appeals assumed that the "Limit of Liability" in Part D ap
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Indiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|