 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pendleton v. Aguilar5/19/2005
tered into the insurance policy to Pendleton's benefit, but also paid the premiums. Thus, pursuant to the unambiguous language of Indiana's Collateral Source Rule, uninsured motorist benefits paid for by the plaintiff's employer are admissible at trial and can be considered by the jury in arriving at a damage award. See I.C. ยงยง 34-44-1-1; 34-44-1-3. As a result, we find that the trial court erred in prohibiting the introduction of the uninsured motorist carrier payments at trial.
Nevertheless, even though the trial court abused its discretion, we conclude this error to be harmless. The trial court's March 2, 2004 Order deducted the full coverage in the amount of $40,000 under the uninsured motorist policy from the jury award pursuant to the set-off requirements of the Illinois Act. Regarding uninsured motorist coverage, the Illinois Court of Appeals held that the express language of the Illinois Act requires that any amount a claimant recovers from its insurer for uninsured motorist coverage has to be deducted from the Illinois Fund's liability. See Lucas v. Ill. Ins. Guar. Fund, 367 N.E.2d 469, 471 (Ill. Ct. App. 1977); Urban v. Loham, 592 N.E.2d 292, 295 (Ill. Ct. App. 1992): see also Ind. Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Davis, 768 N.E.2d 902, 907 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied. Accordingly, as we stated above, since we decided that the Illinois Act is applicable in the instant case, a set-off of collateral payments has to be performed. Because we also held that Indiana's Collateral Source Rule satisfies the set-off requirement under the Illinois Act, we conclude that Aguilar, as in the case of the worker's compensation benefits, is entitled to a single deduction of the uninsured motorist benefits. Here, this single set-off is satisfied by the trial court's Order of March 2, 2004. Consequently, we find that the trial court's error in denying Aguilar's motion to correct error requesting a set-off of the collateral source payments by the uninsured motorist carrier is harmless.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we find that the trial court erred in entering a post-verdict set-off of collateral source payments where evidence of the collateral source reimbursement was presented to the jury and the jury was instructed on non-duplication of recovery. We further find that Indiana's Collateral Source Rule satisfies the set-off requirements of the Illinois Fund, and therefore, the trial court erred in entering a second post-verdict set-off of collateral source payments. With regard to Aguilar's cross-appeal, we find that the trial court properly denied Aguilar's Motion to Correct Error under T.R. 59(J) and the trial court committed harmless error by denying the admission of collateral source payments made to Pendleton by his employer's uninsured motorist carrier.
Reversed in part and remanded in part.
ROBB, J., concurs.
CRONE, J., concurs in part and concurs in result in part with separate opinion.
CRONE, Judge, concurring in part and concurring in result in part
I agree with the majority that the Indiana Collateral Source Statute does not allow a double set-off and that the trial court erroneously did so with Pendleton's worker's compensation benefits. I do not agree, however, that the Illinois Act is applicable here. I believe that Indiana Code Section 27-6-8-11(b) controls and that the Illinois Act would not come into play unless and until Pendleton seeks recovery from the Illinois Fund, presumably in proceedings supplemental. Therefore, I respectfully concur in result as to that issue. In all other respects, I fully concur in the lead opinion.
|