Preview:

FOR PUBLICATION

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: RANDALL L. JUERGENSEN MATTHEW C. BOULTON Keller & Keller Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: MARK D. GERTH Kightlinger & Gray, LLP Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
ROBERT GILLESPIE, Appellant-Plaintiff, vs. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee-Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 49A02-0510-CV-925

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Kenneth H. Johnson, Judge Cause No. 49D02-0111-CP-1725

April 19, 2006

OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION

CRONE, Judge

Case Summary Robert Gillespie appeals the trial court's order granting judgment in favor of GEICO General Insurance Company ("GEICO" or "Geico"). We reverse. Issue Gillespie raises various issues, 1 which we consolidate and restate as whether Gillespie sufficiently "identified" the owner or operator of the vehicle that caused an accident and left the scene such that it qualified as an "uninsured auto" under the GEICO Insurance Policy (the "Policy"). Facts and Procedural History On May 25, 2004, the parties submitted a "Stipulation, Waiver of Jury Trial, Agreed Statement of Facts, and Statement of Issues," in which they agreed that the trial court should "decide and enter judgment in this matter based upon" the following statement of agreed facts: 1. [Geico] issued to Barbara J. Gillespie and Robert Gillespie, Jr. its Indiana Family Automobile Insurance Policy, Policy # 104-09-80, which was in full force and effect on December 12, 1999. [Attached as Exhibit 1]. 2. On or about December 12, 1999, at approximately 10:17 p.m., [Gillespie] was operating a 1995 Ford Contour automobile which was listed as an insured vehicle on Geico's policy with the permission of the named insured [Gillespie's parents] on Interstate 465 in Marion County, Indiana. 3. At said date and time, [Gillespie] was involved in a motor vehicle accident which was caused by the negligent acts of a female driver operating a white Honda vehicle. 4. The driver of the white Honda lost control of her vehicle and struck another vehicle which was driving southbound in the right hand lane of I-465. The white Honda continued to spin and eventually came to rest in the middle of the southbound lanes of the highway.
In the table of contents and in the body of his appellant's brief, Gillespie separates his arguments into four parts. Yet, in his statement of the issues, he lists two questions.
1

2

5. [Gillespie] was driving in the middle lane on the southbound side of I-465 when he turned his vehicle to avoid a collision with the white Honda. As a result, [Gillespie's] vehicle struck the inside median wall. 6. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the motorist in the white Honda, and the resultant collision, [Gillespie] suffered personal injuries. The damages incurred by [Gillespie] as a result of his personal injuries exceed $50,000.00. 7. After initially stopping, the female driver of the Honda left the scene after the collision occurred. No one obtained the name or address of the driver. No one obtained the license plate number from the vehicle which Plaintiff [sic] was driving. 8. Both the driver and the owner of the white Honda vehicle are unknown. 9. The policy issued by Geico contained Uninsured Motorist coverage with limits of $50,000.00 per person and $100,000.00 per accident. 10. In the Policy Index to the Policy, the coverage is described as: "Uninsured Motorist Coverage Your Protection for Injuries Caused by Uninsured and Hit and Run Motorists". 11. However, no coverage for "Hit and Run Motorists" is set forth in the policy nor is the term "Hit and Run Motorists" set forth therin [sic]. 12. In the body of the policy, the coverage is set out under the following title: Uninsured Motorist Coverage

Download Robert Gillespie v. Geico General Insurance Co..pdf

Indiana Law