Help

BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

Employee killed by uninsured driver not covered under auto policy

Reprints
Employee killed by uninsured driver not covered under auto policy

An employee killed by an uninsured driver under the influence of methamphetamine while mowing his lawn is not covered under his company’s uninsured motorist coverage, says the Indiana Supreme Court, in a unanimous ruling that overturns trial and state appeals court rulings in the case.

The key focus in the dispute is the policy term “others we protect” in the uninsured motorist endorsement to the commercial auto policy issued by Erie, Indiana-based Erie Insurance Exchange to Elkhart, Indiana-based Formica Inc., whose employee, Brian Harris, was killed, according to Tuesday’s ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court in Indianapolis in Erie Indemnity Co. v. Estate of Harris.

While Harris’ estate claimed it qualified for coverage under the term, Erie Insurance denied the claim. “Ostensibly, the issue before us remains whether the policy term ‘others we protect’ included Harris,” a scheduled driver under the policy who could use a Formco truck as his primary vehicle for personal and business transportation. “But unpacking the broader issue reveals a narrower, threshold one- whether ‘others we protect’ is ambiguous and amenable to judicial interpretation.”

“This matter involves whether Formco’s commercial auto policy provides coverage for Harris’s death in a motor vehicle accident involving an uninsured motorist, when Harris was not occupying a scheduled vehicle. The parties agree this case presents no genuine issue of material fact, and presents only one legal question, that is, the meaning of one term in the Policy’s (Uninsured Motorist) Endorsement – ‘others we protect.’”

The court concluded Mr. Harris was not covered under the policy. The policy language “in no way indicates that ‘others we protect’ applies to scheduled drivers who would be eligible for coverage,” said the ruling.

“Contrary to the Estate’s claims, neither the Declarations pages, nor the Policy, nor the (Uninsured Motorist) Endorsement expressly list Harris as a ‘named Insured,’ ‘additional Insured,’ or even a protected or covered driver,” said the ruling.

“Brian Harris died in a tragic, senseless accident and his Estate understandably sought (Uninsured Motorist Bodily Injury) compensation from Erie to fill the resulting financial void. But despite the sympathy we have for the Estate and despite Erie’s unartful policy drafting – we simply cannot say that ‘others we protect’ is an ambiguous term amenable to judicial interpretation,” said the ruling, in remanding the case with instructions to enter summary judgment in the insurer’s favor.

 

 

Read Next

  • Bakery’s auto accident costs not covered by Hanover unit

    A federal appeals court has reversed a lower court ruling and held a Hanover Insurance Group Inc. unit is not obligated to defend or indemnify a bakery in connection with an automobile accident under an endorsement in its coverage.