Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Complaint - Indiana

UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORIST COMPLAINT

State of Indiana — Circuit/Superior Court

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Parties
3. Jurisdiction and Venue
4. Insurance Policy Information
5. Coverage Type — UM vs. UIM
6. Facts of the Accident
7. Uninsured/Underinsured Status of At-Fault Driver
8. Exhaustion of Liability Coverage
9. Breach of Contract
10. Bad Faith (If Applicable)
11. Damages
12. Stacking Allegations
13. Arbitration vs. Litigation
14. Prayer for Relief
15. Verification
16. Indiana Practice Notes

1. CAPTION

IN THE [____] COURT OF [____] COUNTY

STATE OF INDIANA

COMPLAINT FOR UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORIST BENEFITS

2. PARTIES

2.1 Plaintiff

1. Plaintiff, [PLAINTIFF FULL LEGAL NAME], is an individual who at all relevant times resided at [________________________________], [CITY], Indiana [__________], in [____] County.

2. Plaintiff was, at the time of the incident, a named insured or covered person under a motor vehicle insurance policy issued by Defendant that included UM/UIM coverage.

2.2 Defendant — Insurance Company

3. Defendant, [INSURANCE COMPANY FULL LEGAL NAME], is an insurance company organized under the laws of [________________________________], authorized to issue motor vehicle insurance policies in the State of Indiana, with its principal place of business at [________________________________].

3. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to IC § 33-28-1-2 (Circuit Court) or IC § 33-29-1-1.5 (Superior Court).

5. Venue is proper in [____] County pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 75 because (select applicable):

☐ The accident occurred in [____] County
☐ Defendant organization has its principal office in [____] County, or has an office or agency there to which this claim relates or out of which this claim arose

4. INSURANCE POLICY INFORMATION

6. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was insured under a motor vehicle insurance policy issued by Defendant, Policy No. [________________________________], effective from [__/__/____] to [__/__/____].

7. The policy provided the following relevant coverages:

☐ Uninsured Motorist Bodily Injury: $[________] per person / $[________] per accident
☐ Underinsured Motorist Bodily Injury: $[________] per person / $[________] per accident
☐ Bodily Injury Liability: $[________] per person / $[________] per accident
☐ Medical Payments: $[________]

8. The named insured did not reject UM/UIM coverage in writing as permitted by IC § 27-7-5-2.

9. Plaintiff paid all required premiums and fulfilled all conditions precedent under the policy.

5. COVERAGE TYPE — UM vs. UIM

10. This claim is brought under (select applicable):

☐ Uninsured Motorist (UM) Coverage — The at-fault driver had no applicable bodily injury liability insurance at the time of the accident, rendering the vehicle "uninsured" under IC § 27-7-5-4.

☐ Underinsured Motorist (UIM) Coverage — The at-fault driver had bodily injury liability insurance with coverage limits available for payment under all applicable bodily injury liability policies that were less than Plaintiff's UIM coverage limits at the time of the accident, rendering the vehicle "underinsured" under IC § 27-7-5-4(b).

☐ Uninsured Motorist (UM) Coverage — Hit-and-Run — The at-fault vehicle left the scene and its owner/operator cannot be identified; the policy covers this event under [POLICY SECTION], including any applicable identification, reporting, or physical-contact conditions.

☐ Uninsured Motorist (UM) Coverage — Insurer Insolvency — The at-fault driver's liability insurer became insolvent within two years after the accident, or the policy provides more favorable insolvency protection (IC § 27-7-5-4(c)).

6. FACTS OF THE ACCIDENT

11. On or about [__/__/____], at approximately [____] ☐ a.m. ☐ p.m., Plaintiff was operating/occupying a motor vehicle at or near [________________________________], [CITY], [____] County, Indiana.

12. At said time and place, a motor vehicle operated by [AT-FAULT DRIVER NAME, if known] (hereinafter "Tortfeasor") collided with Plaintiff's vehicle.

13. The collision occurred under the following circumstances: [________________________________]
    [________________________________]
    [________________________________]

14. The Tortfeasor was negligent in one or more of the following respects:

☐ Failing to maintain a proper lookout
☐ Failing to yield the right-of-way
☐ Operating at an excessive or unreasonable speed
☐ Following too closely in violation of IC § 9-21-8-14
☐ Operating a vehicle while intoxicated in violation of IC § 9-30-5
☐ Violating applicable Indiana traffic laws, specifically: [________________________________]
☐ Other: [________________________________]

15. As a direct and proximate result of the Tortfeasor's negligence, Plaintiff sustained serious bodily injuries and damages.

7. UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED STATUS OF AT-FAULT DRIVER

16. Plaintiff relies on the following statutory definition or additional policy term for UM/UIM coverage (select and complete the supported ground):

☐ No bodily injury liability insurance was in effect at the time of the accident
☐ The applicable insurer denied coverage; the policy treats that denial as an uninsured-motorist event under [POLICY SECTION]: [FACTS]
☐ The liability insurer became insolvent within two years after the accident under IC § 27-7-5-4(a), (c), or the policy affords broader protection under [POLICY SECTION]
☐ The vehicle is a hit-and-run vehicle whose owner/operator cannot be identified; coverage arises under [POLICY SECTION] and its applicable conditions: [FACTS]
☐ The total bodily injury liability coverage available for payment under all policies covering persons liable to Plaintiff ($[________]) is less than Plaintiff's UIM coverage limit ($[________]) at the time of the accident

17. [If UIM:] The Tortfeasor maintained bodily injury liability insurance through [________________________________] with limits of $[________] per person / $[________] per accident, which are insufficient to fully compensate Plaintiff.

8. EXHAUSTION OF LIABILITY COVERAGE (UIM Claims)

18. [If applicable:] Plaintiff has exhausted or is in the process of exhausting the Tortfeasor's bodily injury liability coverage, having received or being entitled to receive $[________] representing the full available policy limits.

19. After any applicable liability payment is credited, Plaintiff alleges unpaid covered damages. The available bodily injury liability coverage limits were lower than Plaintiff's UIM coverage limits at the time of the accident, as required by IC § 27-7-5-4(b).

20. Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice prior to settling with the Tortfeasor's insurer, in compliance with the policy terms.

9. COUNT I — BREACH OF CONTRACT

21. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs.

22. The insurance policy constitutes a valid and enforceable contract between Plaintiff and Defendant.

23. Plaintiff has performed all conditions required under the policy, including timely notification of the claim, cooperation with investigation, and payment of all premiums.

24. Defendant has breached the contract by failing and refusing to pay UM/UIM benefits owed to Plaintiff under the policy and IC § 27-7-5-2.

25. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's breach, Plaintiff has been damaged.

10. COUNT II — BAD FAITH (If Applicable)

26. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs.

27. Under Indiana law, Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty of good faith and fair dealing in handling the UM/UIM claim.

28. Defendant breached said duty by engaging in the following conduct:

☐ Failing to conduct a reasonable and timely investigation of the claim
☐ Unreasonably delaying the processing and payment of benefits
☐ Denying the claim without a reasonable basis in law or fact
☐ Failing to attempt a prompt, fair, and equitable settlement when liability was reasonably clear
☐ Compelling the insured to initiate litigation to recover benefits due under the policy
☐ Other: [________________________________]

11. DAMAGES

29. As a direct and proximate result of the accident and Defendant's failure to pay benefits, Plaintiff has suffered the following damages:

☐ Past medical expenses
☐ Future medical expenses
☐ Past lost wages/income
☐ Future lost earning capacity
☐ Pain and suffering
☐ Mental anguish and emotional distress
☐ Loss of enjoyment of life
☐ Permanent impairment/disfigurement
☐ Loss of consortium (if applicable)
☐ Consequential damages from bad faith (if applicable)

12. STACKING ALLEGATIONS

30. ☐ Plaintiff asserts the right to stack UM/UIM coverages across multiple vehicles insured under the same policy and/or across multiple policies.

31. ☐ Plaintiff contends that no valid anti-stacking provision under IC § 27-7-5-5 or the policy bars stacking under the circumstances of this case.

32. ☐ Plaintiff contends the anti-stacking provision in the policy is unenforceable because: [________________________________]

13. ARBITRATION VS. LITIGATION

33. ☐ The policy does not contain a mandatory arbitration clause, and Plaintiff elects litigation.

34. ☐ The policy contains an arbitration clause, but Plaintiff contends it is unenforceable because: [________________________________]

35. ☐ Plaintiff has completed arbitration and seeks judicial confirmation or review of the award.

14. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in Plaintiff's favor and against Defendant as follows:

a. Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

b. UM/UIM policy benefits in the full amount owed under the policy;

c. Prejudgment interest, if recoverable on the contract claim;

d. Post-judgment interest as provided by law;

e. Consequential damages and punitive damages for bad faith conduct (if applicable);

f. Taxable costs, and reasonable attorney fees only if a statute, policy provision, or other recognized legal basis authorizes them: [IDENTIFY BASIS OR OMIT FEES];

g. All other relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.

15. VERIFICATION

I, [PLAINTIFF FULL LEGAL NAME], affirm under penalties of perjury that the foregoing representations are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

Date: [__/__/____]

Signature: [________________________________]

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

[________________________________]
Attorney for Plaintiff
Indiana Attorney No. [________________]
[________________________________]
[________________________________]
[CITY], Indiana [__________]
Telephone: [________________________________]
Email: [________________________________]

16. INDIANA PRACTICE NOTES

Statutory Framework:

• IC § 27-7-5-2 mandates UM and UIM coverage at limits equal to BI liability limits unless rejected in writing.
• UIM coverage may not be issued in amounts less than $50,000.
• The statute is construed "liberally" and "in favor of the insured" as a remedial statute.

Definitions (IC § 27-7-5-4):

• "Uninsured motor vehicle" means a vehicle without liability insurance or otherwise out of compliance with financial responsibility requirements; it includes an insured vehicle whose liability insurer cannot pay because of insolvency. Insolvency protection under § 27-7-5-4(c) applies when the liability insurer becomes insolvent within two years after the accident, unless the UM policy gives more favorable protection. Denied-coverage and hit-and-run scenarios require checking the actual policy terms and facts; they are not separately listed statutory definitions.
• "Underinsured motor vehicle" — the coverage limits available for payment under all bodily injury liability policies covering persons liable to the insured are lower than the insured's UIM coverage limits at the time of the accident, subject to the coverage terms and conditions.

Stacking (IC § 27-7-5-5):

• IC § 27-7-5-5(a) permits a policy to cap total UM/UIM liability at the highest single-policy limit applicable to the loss. Under § 27-7-5-5(b), when a single automobile liability policy covers multiple vehicles, UM/UIM coverage applies only to the operation of vehicles for which a specific UM/UIM premium charge was made. That provision does not itself grant a right to stack limits.
• In Glover v. Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Co., No. 20S-CT-23 (Ind. Oct. 8, 2020), the Indiana Supreme Court held that the policy's anti-stacking clause barred adding UIM policy limits together but did not bar multiple UIM recoveries within the applicable limit. Its offset clause reduced coverage by payments made on behalf of those directly liable for the injury, not by other UIM payments. Apply the particular policy wording and § 27-7-5-5 to the facts.
• IC § 27-7-5-6 governs subrogation, not stacking — review the specific policy language and recent court decisions on stacking.

Minimum Insurance Requirements (IC § 9-25-4-5):

• Bodily Injury Liability: $25,000 per person / $50,000 per accident.
• Property Damage Liability: $25,000 per accident.

Statute of Limitations:

• Personal injury/tort claims generally: Two (2) years after the cause of action accrues (IC § 34-11-2-4(a)); the injury date alone does not establish accrual.
• General contract periods vary by the instrument: § 34-11-2-11(a) gives a ten-year period for written contracts other than those for payment of money; § 34-11-2-9(b) generally gives six years for written contracts for payment of money executed after August 31, 1982; § 34-11-2-7 gives six years for contracts not in writing. Check the claim and applicable provision.
• UM/UIM benefit claims arise under the insurance policy. Napier v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., No. 21A-PL-980, at 5-9 (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2021), explains that the written-contract period controls absent a clearly expressed policy provision adopting another period; it enforced a policy clause importing the two-year tort period in that case. Read the actual policy and identify the claim's accrual date before selecting a deadline. The two-year tort period does not automatically govern every UM/UIM benefits claim.

Comparative Fault:

• Indiana follows modified comparative fault (IC § 34-51-2); plaintiff barred if fault is greater than 50%.

Recent Developments:

• In 2024, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that ambiguities in the UIM statute must be construed in favor of coverage, and that "retained limits" do not insulate insurers from statutory UIM obligations.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• IC § 27-7-5-2 — Uninsured and Underinsured Motorist Coverage
• IC § 27-7-5-4 — Definitions
• IC § 27-7-5-5 — Limitations on Coverage (Stacking)
• IC § 27-7-5-6 — Subrogation
• Indiana Supreme Court UIM Decision (2025)