Sec. 7. (a) No policy of insurance against:
(1) a:
(A) loss or damage resulting from accident to; or
(B) death or injury suffered by;
an employee or other person or persons and for which the person
or persons insured are liable; or
(2) a loss or damage to property resulting from collision with any
moving or stationary object and for which loss or damage the
person or persons insured are liable;
shall be issued or delivered in this state by any domestic or foreign
corporation, insurance underwriters, association, or other insurer
authorized to do business in this state, unless the requirements of
subsection (b) are met.
(b) A policy described in subsection (a) must contain the following:
(1) A provision that:
(A) the insolvency or bankruptcy of the person or persons
insured shall not release the insurance carrier from the payment
of damages for injury sustained or loss occasioned during the
life of the policy; and
(B) if execution against the insured is returned unsatisfied in an
action brought by the injured person or his or her personal
representative in case death resulted from the accident because
of insolvency or bankruptcy described in clause (A) then an
action may be maintained by the injured person, or his or her
personal representative, against the domestic or foreign
corporation, insurance underwriters, association or other insurer
under the terms of the policy for the amount of the judgment in
the said action not exceeding the amount of the policy.
(2) A provision that notice given by or on behalf of the insured to
any authorized agent of the insurer within this state, with
particulars sufficient to identify the insured, shall be deemed to be
notice to the insurer.
(3) If the policy is to be issued or delivered in this state to the
owner of a motor vehicle, a provision insuring the owner against
liability for damages for death or injury to person or property
resulting from negligence in the operation of the motor vehicle,
in the business of the owner or otherwise, by any person legally
using or operating the motor vehicle with the permission,
expressed or implied, of the owner.
(c) If a motor vehicle is owned jointly by a husband and wife:
(1) either spouse may, with the written consent of the other
spouse, be excluded from coverage under a policy described in
subsection (b)(3); and
(2) the husband and wife may choose to have their liability
covered under separate policies.
(d) This section does not prohibit an insurer from making available
a named driver exclusion in a commercial motor vehicle policy.
(e) A policy issued in violation of this section shall, nevertheless, be
held valid but be deemed to include the provisions required by this
section, and when any provision in the policy or rider is in conflict with
a provision required to be contained by this section, the rights, duties
and obligations of the insurer, the policyholder and the injured person
or persons shall be governed by the provisions of this section.
(f) No policy of insurance shall be issued or delivered in this state
by any foreign or domestic corporation, insurance underwriters,
association, or other insurer authorized to do business in this state,
unless it contains a provision that authorizes such foreign or domestic
corporation, insurance underwriters, association, or other insurer
authorized to do business in this state to settle the liability of its insured
under IC 34-18 without the consent of its insured when the unanimous
opinion of the medical review panel under IC 34-18-10-22(b)(1) is that
the evidence supports the conclusion that the defendant failed to
comply with the appropriate standard of care as charged in the
complaint.
Formerly: Acts 1935, c.162, s.177. As amended by Acts 1981,
P.L.241, SEC.2; P.L.111-1998, SEC.1; P.L.72-2016, SEC.8.
Notes of Decisions
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boles, 481 N.E.2d 1096 (Ind. 1985).
· cites it 24× “1985); Liability Insurance Policies Prohibitions Exclusions from coverage as between spouses, Ind. Code § 27-1-13-7 (Burns Supp. 1985); and the Safety Responsibility and Driver Improvement Act.”
N. Indiana Pub. Serv. Co. v. Bloom, 847 N.E.2d 175 (Ind. 2006).
· cites it 14× “Equally important, if the statute did render a self-insurer an insurer, that insurance would be only the minimum required coverage under applicable statutes and regulations.”
Columbia Cas. Co. v. Fed. Press Co. (In Re Fed. Press Co.), 104 B.R. 56 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 1989).
· cites it 10× “Ind.Code § 27-1-13-7 requires insurance policies issued in Indiana to contain a provision preventing the insolvency or bankrupt-' cy of the insured from releasing the insurance carrier from liability under the policy and states that if “execution against the insured is returned…”
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Gonterman, 637 N.E.2d 811 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 4× “The court in Smith first noted that Indiana Code § 27-1-13-7 “speaks only of express or implied permission” and to inject an “ ‘apparent authority 1 argument into this schematic would disrupt the obvious intent of the Indiana legislature to require coverage only ... where the…”
Raines v. Auto-Owners Ins., 703 N.E.2d 689 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 4× “Learman and Raines argue in their separate briefs that to rule as a matter of law that Learman did not have permission is a misreading of the law of our State, in particular Ind.Code § 27-1-13-7 and Indiana’s Financial Responsibility Act, found at Ind.”
Econ. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Collins, 643 N.E.2d 382 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 2× “" Ind.Code § 27-1-13-7. Also Indiana courts impose a duty on insurance companies to deal in good faith with their insureds.”
Indiana Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co. v. Vincel, 452 N.E.2d 418 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 2× “We also observe that automobile liability insurers need only provide liability coverage for the owner of the insured automobile and for persons using the vehicle with the permission of the owner, Ind.Code 27-1-13-7 (1976). The 1981 amendments did not alter this basic…”
Lexington Ins. Co. v. Am. Healthcare Providers, 621 N.E.2d 332 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993).
“The Plaintiffs seek aid from a provision in Ind.Code 27-1-13-7 (1988), which requires certain personal injury or property damage insurance poli-cles to contain a provision preventing the insolvency or bankruptcy of an insured from releasing an insurance carrier, and a provision…”
City of South Bend v. Century Indem. Co., 824 N.E.2d 794 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 4× “The City has petitioned for rehearing, asking that we address the issue, raised in its brief, of whether Indiana Code section 27-1-13-7 applies to this action.”
Safe Auto Ins. Co. v. Farm Bureau Ins. Co., 856 N.E.2d 156 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 11× “The terms of Duran's policy contained general exelusions from coverage, including losses: 2, Arising while your covered auto is being operated by a resident of your household or by a regular user of your covered auto unless that person is listed as an additional driver on the…”
Newport v. MFA Ins. Co., 448 N.E.2d 1223 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983).
“MFA, in addition to arguing the issues presented by Newport, propounds the following additional ground to support affirmance: Whether Newport is precluded from arguing for recovery in a direct action against MFA pursuant to Ind.Code 27-1-13-7 (Burns, 1975) when she initially…”
Hendrix v. Page, 986 F.2d 195 (7th Cir. 1993).
“However, Indiana law requires insurance policies to contain “a provision that the insolvency or bankruptcy of the .”
Ind. Code § 27-1-13-7(a): 3 cases
N. Indiana Pub. Serv. Co. v. Bloom, 847 N.E.2d 175 (Ind. 2006).
“Equally important, if the statute did render a self-insurer an insurer, that insurance would be only the minimum required coverage under applicable statutes and regulations.”
Safe Auto Ins. Co. v. Farm Bureau Ins. Co., 856 N.E.2d 156 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
“The terms of Duran's policy contained general exelusions from coverage, including losses: 2, Arising while your covered auto is being operated by a resident of your household or by a regular user of your covered auto unless that person is listed as an additional driver on the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.