Progressive Halcyon Insurance Company (“Progressive”) appeals the denial of its motion for summary judgment and the granting of the motions for summary judgment filed by Michael Petty and Autumn Petty on the issue of whether Michael and Autumn are entitled to underinsured motorist (“UIM”) coverage under Autumn’s policy with Progressive (“the Policy”).
Issue: Are Michael and Autumn entitled to UIM coverage under the Policy?
Conclusion (slip op. at 17): We conclude that Michael and Autumn are not entitled to UIM coverage under the Policy. Therefore, we reverse and remand with instructions to grant summary judgment in Progressive’s favor. Reversed and remanded.
Key Analysis (slip op. at 16, 17): We conclude that the $50,000 threshold mentioned in I.C. 27-7-5-2(a) refers only to the $50,000 per-accident limits mentioned in I.C. 9-25-4-5 and that the minimum per-person UIM coverage is $25,000 . . . we conclude that [the] Policy does not provide less coverage than required by Indiana [law] . . . . although I.C. 27-7-5-4 is a full-recovery statute, “a full-recovery statute will not necessarily assure full indemnification for all potential damage to all potential insureds.