Siblings' Emotional Distress Claims are Subject to the Same Limit of Liability As Decedent
January, 2005
In Allstate Ins. Co. v. Tozer, 392 F. 3d 950 (7th Cir. 2004), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that emotional distress claims brought by automobile passengers in an accident are subject to the same “each person” limit of liability applicable to the wrongful death claim.
Facts
On January 3, 2001, Lindsay Tozer was involved in an accident while driving her parents' automobile. Kyle Keltner and his two siblings, Nicholas and Kristina, were passengers in Tozer's car. Kyle died from injuries sustained in the accident. Nicholas and Kristina sustained only minor physical injuries, but alleged that they suffered severe emotional distress because they witnessed Kyle's injuries and death.
The subject automobile was insured by Tozer's parents through Allstate. The Allstate policy included limits of $100,000 for bodily injury claims to “each person” and $300,000 for “each accident.” Allstate settled Kyle's estate's wrongful death claim for $1.l million. The Allstate policy paid $100,000; the remaining $1 million was paid under an umbrella policy.
In 2002, Nicholas and Kristina (“claimants”) filed suit against Tozer in Hamilton County, Indiana, seeking damages for emotional distress allegedly caused by their witnessing the injuries and eventual death of Kyle. Allstate subsequently filed the instant declaratory judgment action in federal district court in Indiana seeking a declaration that Nicholas and Kristina's emotional distress claims were subject to the $100,000 “each person” liability limits applicable to Kyle's injuries and that it had exhausted all liability for the emotional distress claims when it paid Kyle's estate $100,000.
All parties moved for summary judgment. The district court ruled in favor of Nicholas and Kristina, opining that they had brought separate and distinct claims for bodily injury under the policy. The court noted that the definition of bodily injury could include claims for emotional distress as long as the plaintiff suffered a physical injury at the time of the occurrence, even if that injury did not cause the alleged emotional distress. The court observed that its analysis in this regard would comport with the “modified impact rule” applied to negligent infliction of emotional distress claims as set forth in Shuamber v. Henderson, 597 N.E.2d 452, 456 (Ind. 1991). Allstate appealed.
Analysis
On appeal, Allstate argued that it had exhausted its liability for Nicholas's and Kristina's emotional distress claims because said claims were subject to the same $100,000 “each person” limits of liability applicable to Kyle's injuries and death. Claimants argued that the claims for emotional distress were separate bodily injuries and, therefore, allowed additional coverage under the Allstate policy.
The Seventh Circuit observed that the Allstate policy defined bodily injury as “physical harm to the body, sickness, disease, or death.” Allstate limited its liability to $100,000 for “each person,” up to a maximum of $300,000 for “each accident.” The court further noted that the Allstate policy defined the limits in the following way: “The limit stated for each person for bodily injury is our total limit of liability for all damages because of bodily injury sustained by one person, including all damages sustained by anyone else as a result of that bodily injury.”
Claimants argued that, according to cases from other jurisdictions, emotional distress qualifies as a separate bodily injury under insurance policies similar to the Allstate policy at issue here. Claimants further argued that the Indiana Supreme Court would likely follow cases from Iowa and Pennsylvania which held that negligent inflection of emotional distress is an independent tort and, therefore, a claim of emotional distress would constitute a separate bodily injury under an insurance policy. However, the Seventh Circuit disagreed. The court noted that, pursuant to governing Indiana law, the question of whether the siblings' emotional distress claims fell under the “each person” policy provision was an issue of contract interpretation. Bowers v. Kushnick, 774 N.E.2d 884 (Ind. 2002).
The plain language of the policy indicated that Allstate's liability for bodily injuries sustained by Kyle and “damages sustained by anyone else as a result of” his injuries would be limited to a maximum of $100,000. Since it was clear that the emotional distress claims brought by Nicholas and Kristina were not for separate bodily injuries, but instead were for damages sustained as a result of Kyle's injuries, their claims were subject to the $100,000 limit of liability applied to Kyle's injuries. The Seventh Circuit accordingly reversed, noting that although the siblings suffered relatively minor physical injuries in the accident, they did not allege that these physical injuries caused their emotional distress.
Claimants also argued that Allstate was estopped from arguing that its liability limit had been exhausted because Allstate assumed Tozer's defense in the Hamilton County lawsuit without preserving its right to deny coverage. Claimants contended that since Allstate understood the nature of Nicholas and Kristina's claims by the time it entered its appearance on Tozer's behalf, it was estopped from alleging that Nicholas and Kristina's claims were not “bodily injuries.” The court found this argument unpersuasive. The court explained that an insurer has two options if it wants to avoid a claim of estoppel by its insured. First, the insurer can bring a declaratory judgment action to determine its rights and obligations under its policy. Second, it can hire an independent counsel to represent and defend its insured under a reservation of rights. Gallant Ins. Co. v. Wilkerson, 720 N.E. 2d 1223 (Ind.App. 1999). Allstate chose the first option when it filed its lawsuit. The insureds were not prejudiced because their legal obligations were clarified. Therefore, Allstate could argue that its liability limits were exhausted.
Learning Point:
Since the court made clear that the extent of an insurer's liability in Indiana is a matter of contract interpretation, insurance policies must be drafted with as much clarity as possible. Otherwise, ambiguities may cause insurers to get stuck paying significantly more in damages, under their policies, than they ever intended.
Back to CM Report of Recent Decisions (2005v1) 2005 Volume 1 Table of Contents
