Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 27-7-5-5 (2026)
Limitations on coverage
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 5. (a) The policy or endorsement affording coverage specified in this chapter may provide that the total limit of all insurers' liability arising out of any one (1) accident shall not exceed the highest limits under any one (1) policy applicable to the loss, but in no event may coverage be less than the minimum set forth in IC 9-25-4-5.
(b) When the coverage specified in this chapter is written to apply to one (1) or more motor vehicles under a single automobile liability policy, such coverage applies only to the operation of those motor vehicles for which a specific uninsured or underinsured motorist premium charge has been made and does not apply to the operation of any motor vehicles insured under the policy or owned by the named insured for which a premium charge has not been made.
(c) The maximum amount payable for bodily injury under uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage is the lesser of:
(1) the difference between:
(A) the amount paid in damages to the insured by or for any person or organization who may be liable for the insured's bodily injury; and
(B) the per person limit of uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage provided in the insured's policy; or
(2) the difference between:
(A) the total amount of damages incurred by the insured; and
(B) the amount paid by or for any person or organization liable for the insured's bodily injury.
As added by Acts 1982, P.L.166, SEC.4. Amended by P.L.391-1987(ss), SEC.3; P.L.2-1991, SEC.90; P.L.1-1992, SEC.153; P.L.1-1993, SEC.205.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Kinslow v. GEICO Ins. Co., 858 N.E.2d 109 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
Kinslow v. GEICO Ins. Co., 858 N.E.2d 109 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “Ind.Code § 27-7-5-5(c). Although this statutory provision has been in existence since 1987, few of the several cases decided since then regarding setoffs and uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage have mentioned the provision, including Beam.”
Wagner v. Yates, 912 N.E.2d 805 (Ind. 2009). “It is of course true that an insurance company is not required to draft an anti-stacking clause that tracks the language of I.C. § 27-7-5-5. High, 533 N.E.2d at 1279 .”
Progressive Ins. Co., Inc. v. Bullock, 841 N.E.2d 238 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “" IC. § 27-7-5-5(c) (emphasis added). 7 . We note that Progressive made this argument in its November 22, 2002 brief in support of its motion for summary judgment.”
Veness v. Midland Risk Ins. Co., 732 N.E.2d 209 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). “Code § 27-7-5-5(b), which provides: When the coverage specified in this chapter is written to apply to one (1) or more motor vehicles under a single automobile liability policy, such coverage applies only to the operation of those motor vehicles for which a specific unin-' sured…”
Meridian Mut. Ins. Co v. Richie, 540 N.E.2d 27 (Ind. 1989). “Ind. Code § 27-7-5-5 (c). However, this amendment avoids resulting in illusory underinsured motorist coverage because the same Act, P.”
Corr v. Am. Fam. Ins., 767 N.E.2d 535 (Ind. 2002). “Indiana Code section 27-7-5-5(c) states that the maximum amount payable for bodily injury under UIM coverage is the lesser of (1) the difference between the amount paid in damages to the insured by the tortfeasor and the "per person limit" of UIM coverage held by the insured,…”
Lakes v. Grange Mut. Cas. Co., 964 N.E.2d 796 (Ind. 2012). “See I.C. § 27-7-5-5(c). Whether Hannah is entitled to any or all of this available UIM coverage will depend on the damages she is able to prove at trial.”
Am. Econ. Ins. v. Motorists Mut. Ins., 593 N.E.2d 1242 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992). “Pursuant to Ind.Code § 27-7-5-5: “(a) The policy or endorsement affording [underinsured motorists coverage] may provide that the total limit of all insurers’ liability arising out of any one (1) accident shall not exceed the highest limits under any one (1) policy applicable to…”
Medley v. Am. Econ. Ins. Co., 654 N.E.2d 313 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995). “CODE § 27-7-5-5 (1992 Supp.). The underinsured motorist statute sets forth the minimum and maximum amount of coverage an insurance company is obligated to provide to a victim who has not been fully compensated for his injuries: "(a) The policy or endorsement affording coverage…”
Ansert Ex Rel. Ansert v. Indiana Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 659 N.E.2d 614 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995). “Specifically, we stated: "Pursuant to Ind.Code § 27-7-5-5: '(a) The policy or endorsement affording [underinsured motorists coverage] may provide that the total limit of all insurers' liability arising out of any one (1) accident shall not exceed the highest limit under any one…”
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Roach, 945 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 2006). “Compare Ind.Code § 27-7-5-5 (2004) with § 627.727(1), Fla.”
Masten v. Amco Ins. Co., 953 N.E.2d 566 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “Ind.Code § 27-7-5-5(c). In Grain Dealers, this court ruled that sub-paragraph 1 did not restrict set-offs to amounts received from underinsured motorist tortfeasors, and neither did the policy at issue, so the insurer was entitled to a set-off of $150,001.”
— Ind. Code § 27-7-5-5(a) — 5 cases
Wagner v. Yates, 912 N.E.2d 805 (Ind. 2009). “It is of course true that an insurance company is not required to draft an anti-stacking clause that tracks the language of I.C. § 27-7-5-5. High, 533 N.E.2d at 1279 .”
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Conway, 779 F. Supp. 963 (S.D. Ind. 1991).
Medley v. Am. Econ. Ins. Co., 654 N.E.2d 313 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995). “CODE § 27-7-5-5 (1992 Supp.). The underinsured motorist statute sets forth the minimum and maximum amount of coverage an insurance company is obligated to provide to a victim who has not been fully compensated for his injuries: "(a) The policy or endorsement affording coverage…”
Steven Glover, As Pers. Rep. of the Est. of Shelina M. Glover v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. (Ind. 2020).
Michael Cline v. Everest Nat'l Ins. Co. (Ind. Ct. App. 2026).
— Ind. Code § 27-7-5-5(b) — 4 cases
Veness v. Midland Risk Ins. Co., 732 N.E.2d 209 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). “Code § 27-7-5-5(b), which provides: When the coverage specified in this chapter is written to apply to one (1) or more motor vehicles under a single automobile liability policy, such coverage applies only to the operation of those motor vehicles for which a specific unin-' sured…”
Progressive Paloverde Ins. v. Jacob P. Arnold, 16 N.E.3d 993 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. DeFluiter, 456 N.E.2d 429 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983).
Neal v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins., 945 F. Supp. 1198 (S.D. Ind. 1996).
— Ind. Code § 27-7-5-5(c) — 16 cases
Kinslow v. GEICO Ins. Co., 858 N.E.2d 109 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “Ind.Code § 27-7-5-5(c). Although this statutory provision has been in existence since 1987, few of the several cases decided since then regarding setoffs and uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage have mentioned the provision, including Beam.”
Progressive Ins. Co., Inc. v. Bullock, 841 N.E.2d 238 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “" IC. § 27-7-5-5(c) (emphasis added). 7 . We note that Progressive made this argument in its November 22, 2002 brief in support of its motion for summary judgment.”
Corr v. Am. Fam. Ins., 767 N.E.2d 535 (Ind. 2002). “Indiana Code section 27-7-5-5(c) states that the maximum amount payable for bodily injury under UIM coverage is the lesser of (1) the difference between the amount paid in damages to the insured by the tortfeasor and the "per person limit" of UIM coverage held by the insured,…”
Lakes v. Grange Mut. Cas. Co., 964 N.E.2d 796 (Ind. 2012). “See I.C. § 27-7-5-5(c). Whether Hannah is entitled to any or all of this available UIM coverage will depend on the damages she is able to prove at trial.”
Masten v. Amco Ins. Co., 953 N.E.2d 566 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “Ind.Code § 27-7-5-5(c). In Grain Dealers, this court ruled that sub-paragraph 1 did not restrict set-offs to amounts received from underinsured motorist tortfeasors, and neither did the policy at issue, so the insurer was entitled to a set-off of $150,001.”
— Ind. Code § 27-7-5-5(c)(1) — 2 cases
Kinslow v. GEICO Ins. Co., 858 N.E.2d 109 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “Ind.Code § 27-7-5-5(c). Although this statutory provision has been in existence since 1987, few of the several cases decided since then regarding setoffs and uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage have mentioned the provision, including Beam.”
Alyse McGlaughlin & Connie Kleiner v. Jennifer M. McGlaughlin, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., & Roger McGlaughlin (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
— Ind. Code § 27-7-5-5(c)(1)(A) — 2 cases
Progressive Ins. Co., Inc. v. Bullock, 841 N.E.2d 238 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “" IC. § 27-7-5-5(c) (emphasis added). 7 . We note that Progressive made this argument in its November 22, 2002 brief in support of its motion for summary judgment.”
Am. Econ. Ins. v. Motorists Mut. Ins., 605 N.E.2d 162 (Ind. 1992).
— Ind. Code § 27-7-5-5(c)(l)(A) — 1 case
Christine Anderson v. Indiana Ins. Co., a member of Liberty Mut. Grp., 8 N.E.3d 258 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
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.