FILED
Mar 26 2020, 9:36 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Robert J. Palmer Crystal Gates Rowe
Jon R. Rogers Kightlinger & Gray, LLP
Georgianne M. Walker New Albany, Indiana
May Oberfell Lorber Casey R. Stafford
Mishawaka, Indiana Kightlinger & Gray, LLP
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Christine Catanzarite, March 26, 2020
Appellant-Plaintiff, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CT-2338
v. Appeal from the St. Joseph
Superior Court
Safeco Insurance Company of The Honorable David C.
Indiana, Chapleau, Judge
Appellee-Defendant. Trial Court Cause No.
71D06-1809-CT-451
Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CT-2338 | March 26, 2020 Page 1 of 16
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
[1] Appellant-Plaintiff, Christine Catanzarite (Catanzarite), appeals the trial court’s
summary judgment concluding that there was no genuine issue of material fact
precluding judgment in favor of the Appellee-Defendant, Safeco Insurance
Company of Indiana (Safeco).
[2] We affirm.
ISSUE
[3] Catanzarite presents one issue on appeal, which we restate as: Whether the
trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of Safeco.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[4] On February 1, 2018, Catanzarite was driving eastbound on Sample Street,
South Bend, Indiana. At around the same time, Timothy Smith (Smith) was
driving westbound on Sample Street, and as he was turning south onto Edison
Street, an intersection on Sample Street, he struck Catanzarite’s vehicle. The
accident was caused by Smith’s negligence. As a result of the collision,
Catanzarite suffered broken legs and was hospitalized at Memorial Hospital for
approximately three weeks, during which time reasonable and necessary
medical expenses in the amount of $269,841.32 were incurred by Catanzarite.
On April 13, 2018, Memorial Hospital timely filed with the St. Joseph County
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CT-2338 | March 26, 2020 Page 2 of 16
Recorder’s Office its hospital lien for the recovery of the costs of the health care
services rendered to Catanzarite. 1
[5] At the time of the collision, Smith was insured by Hanover Insurance
(Hanover), and he had tortfeasor’s liability insurance coverage with a policy
limit of $100,000 per person. Catanzarite had underinsured motorist (UIM)
coverage with Safeco which had a policy limit of $100,000 per person.
[6] On March 25, 2018, Hanover sent a letter to Catanzarite, stating that upon a
signed release, it would pay Catanzarite $100,000, the maximum payable under
Smith’s bodily injury liability coverage. With preliminary medical expenses
amounting to $269,841.32, through her lawyer, Catanzarite wrote to Safeco and
claimed that her total damages were in excess of Smith’s bodily injury liability
coverage, and she asserted a claim under the Underinsured Motorist (UIM)
provision of her own policy. Safeco denied this claim, claiming that Smith’s
$100,000 bodily injury liability limits were equal to Catanzarite’s $100,000
UIM coverage limits, thus Catanzarite was precluded from further payment.
[7] On September 26, 2018, Catanzarite filed a Complaint for Declaratory
Judgment, seeking a declaration as to whether she was entitled to her UIM
coverage from Safeco. On December 5, 2018, Safeco filed its response.
1
At the summary judgment hearing, Catanzarite claimed that Memorial Hospital had reduced her medical
expenses to $25,000. Safeco did not challenge the reduced medical lien and the record is devoid of any
evidence that Memorial Hospital perfected another lien with respect to the adjusted amount. Thus, we rely
on the testimony offered at the summary judgment hearing.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CT-2338 | March 26, 2020 Page 3 of 16
[8] On May 10, 2019, Catanzarite filed a motion for summary judgment against
Safeco arguing that there was no genuine issue of material fact and was entitled
to judgment as a matter of law. In her memorandum in support, Catanzarite
argued that once her hospital lien is deducted from the $100,000 settlement she
and was receiving from Hanover, the balance of any payment available to her
under Smith’s bodily injury liability policy would be less than the limits under
her UIM policy at the time of the accident. Based on her computation,
Catanzarite asserted that Smith was underinsured at the time of the accident,
and that she was entitled to her own UIM coverage benefits from Safeco.
Safeco filed a response on June 17, 2019, opposing Catanzarite’s summary
judgment motion. Safeco did not factor in the hospital lien reducing the
available payments under Smith’s policy and it ultimately argued that Smith
was not operating an underinsured motor vehicle at the time of the accident,
therefore, no UIM coverage benefits were available to Catanzarite. On
September 13, 2019, the trial court conducted a hearing on the parties’ motions,
and it granted summary judgment in favor of Safeco stating, in pertinent part
that
After review of the submissions for summary judgment and oral
argument, [the trial court] finds that there is no genuine issue of
material fact and denies [Catanzarite’s] [m]otion for [s]ummary
[j]udgment and grants summary judgment in favor of Safeco as a
matter of law. Specifically, the [c]ourt finds that payment of a
hospital lien by a tortfeasor’s liability insurer does not reduce the
limit of liability coverage under the tortfeasor’s insurance policy
for purposes of determining whether the tortfeasor is
underinsured. As such, the [c]ourt declares that in relation to the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CT-2338 | March 26, 2020 Page 4 of 16
February 1, 2018 automobile accident between [Catanzarite] and
[] Smith, there are no [UIM] coverage benefits available to
[Catanzarite] under the automobile insurance policy issued to
[Catanzariet] by Safeco under Policy No. K2487269.
The [c]ourt finds that no just cause for delay exists and expressly
directs entry of final judgment on Safeco’s behalf.
(Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 8)
[9] Catanzarite now appeals. Additional information will be provided as
necessary.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
I. Standard of Review
[10] Summary judgment is appropriate only when there are no genuine issues of
material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Ind. Trial Rule 56(C). “A fact is material if its resolution would affect the
outcome of the case, and an issue is genuine if a trier of fact is required to
resolve the parties’ differing accounts of the truth . . ., or if the undisputed facts
support conflicting reasonable inferences.” Williams v. Tharp, 914 N.E.2d 756,
761 (Ind. 2009).
[11] In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on summary judgment, this court stands in the
shoes of the trial court, applying the same standards in deciding whether to
affirm or reverse summary judgment. First Farmers Bank & Trust Co. v. Whorley,
891 N.E.2d 604, 607 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied. Thus, on appeal, we
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CT-2338 | March 26, 2020 Page 5 of 16
must determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact and whether
the trial court has correctly applied the law. Id. at 607-08. In doing so, we
consider all of the designated evidence in the light most favorable to the non-
moving party. Id. at 608. “Any doubt as to any facts or inferences to be drawn
therefrom must be resolved in favor of the non-moving party.” Goodwin v.
Yeakle’s Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., 62 N.E.3d 384, 386 (Ind. 2016). The party that
lost in the trial court bears the burden of persuading us that the trial court erred.
Biedron v. Anonymous Physician 1, 106 N.E.3d 1079, 1089 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018),
trans. denied.
[12] In Indiana, the interpretation of an insurance policy is a matter of law. Westfield
Cos. v. Knapp, 804 N.E.2d 1270, 1273-74 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). Insurance
contract provisions are subject to the same rules of construction as other
contracts. Id. Thus, courts must construe insurance policies as a whole, rather
than considering individual words, phrases, or paragraphs. Id. If the contract
language is clear and unambiguous, it should be given its plain and ordinary
meaning. Newnam Mfg., Inc. v. Transcon. Ins. Co., 871 N.E.2d 396, 401 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2007). Additionally, “[i]nsurance companies are free to limit their
liability, so long as they do so in a manner consistent with public policy as
reflected by case or statutory law.” Gheae v. Founders Ins. Co., 854 N.E.2d 419,
423 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). Thus, “[a]n insurance policy that is unambiguous
must be enforced according to its terms, even those terms that limit an insurer’s
liability.” Klepper v. ACE Am. Ins. Co., 999 N.E.2d 86, 90 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
“Where an ambiguity exists, that is, where reasonably intelligent people may
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CT-2338 | March 26, 2020 Page 6 of 16
interpret the policy’s language differently, Indiana courts construe the insurance
policies strictly against the insurer.” Auto-Owners Inc. Co. v. Benko, 964 N.E.2d
886, 890 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). However, “an ambiguity is not affirmatively
established simply because controversy exists, and one party asserts an
interpretation contrary to that asserted by the opposing party.” Beam v. Wausau
Ins. Co., 765 N.E.2d 524, 528 (Ind. 2002) (citations omitted).
II. Applicable Statutes and Policy Provisions
[13] At the summary judgment hearing, Catanzarite stated that Memorial Hospital
had reduced her medical expense from $269,841.32 to $25,000. While
acknowledging that Hanover had agreed to pay her $100,000, the maximum
payable under Smith’s bodily injury liability coverage, Catanzarite argued that
her net recovery (the actual available amount) payable to her under Smith’s
bodily injury liability policy would be $75,000, an amount less than her
$100,000 UIM policy limits by Safeco. Thus, Catanzarite argued that the
medical lien would reduce the recovery amount accessible for payment under
the terms set out in Indiana Code section 27-7-5-4(b), that Smith was operating
an underinsured motor vehicle at the time of the accident to the extent of the
medical lien, and she was entitled to her UIM coverage benefits from Safeco.
[14] Indiana’s UIM statute allows insurers and their insured to set their own UIM
liability limits, but it prescribes the comparative mechanism for determining
whether an insured is eligible to collect under a policy’s UIM provision. See
Corr v. Am. Family Ins., 767 N.E.2d 535, 540-41 (Ind. 2002). Indiana Code
section 27-7-5-4(b) defines an underinsured motor vehicle as follows:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CT-2338 | March 26, 2020 Page 7 of 16
For the purpose of this chapter, the term underinsured motor
vehicle, subject to the terms and conditions of such coverage,
includes an insured motor vehicle where the limits of coverage
available for payment to the insured under all bodily injury liability
policies covering persons liable to the insured are less than the limits for
the insured’s underinsured motorist coverage at the time of the accident,
but does not include an uninsured motor vehicle as defined in
subsection (a).
(emphasis added). The aim of UIM coverage is “to give the insured the
recovery he or she would have received if the underinsured motorist [the
tortfeasor] had maintained an adequate policy of liability insurance.” Corr, 767
N.E.2d at 540. UIM coverage is “designed to provide individuals with
indemnification in the event that negligent motorists are inadequately insured.”
Id. Given the remedial nature of UIM coverage, “underinsured motorist
legislation is to be liberally construed” and “read in a light most favorable to the
insured.” Masten v. AMCO Ins. Co., 953 N.E.2d 566, 570 (Ind. 2011).
[15] Catanzarite’s UIM coverage contained the following pertinent language:
INSURING AGREEMENT
A. We will pay damages which an insured is legally entitled to
recover from the owner or operator of an underinsured motor
vehicle because of bodily injury:
1. Sustained by that insured; and
2. Caused by an accident.
The owner’s or operator’s liability for these damages must arise
out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the underinsured
motor vehicle. We will pay damages under this coverage caused
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CT-2338 | March 26, 2020 Page 8 of 16
by an accident with an underinsured motor vehicle only if [C] 1.
or 2. below applies:
****
C. “Underinsured motor vehicle” means a land motor vehicle or
trailer of any type for which the sum of the limits of liability
under all bodily injury liability bonds or policies applicable at the
time of the accident is either:
1. Less than the limit of liability for this coverage; or
2. Reduced by payments to persons, other than insureds, injured
in the accident to less than the limit of liability for this coverage.
****
(Appellant’s App. Vol. II, pp. 53-54).
[16] Also, to determine whether a tortfeasor’s available coverage may be reduced by
the payment of a hospital lien, we must consider the fundamental nature of the
hospital lien itself. Indiana Code section 32-33-4-3 governs hospital liens and
provides:
(a) A person, a firm, a partnership, an association, a limited
liability company, or a corporation maintaining a hospital in
Indiana or a hospital owned, maintained, or operated by the state
or a political subdivision has a lien for all reasonable and
necessary charges for hospital care, treatment, and maintenance
of a patient (including emergency ambulance services provided
by the hospital) upon any cause of action, suit, or claim accruing
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CT-2338 | March 26, 2020 Page 9 of 16
to the patient, or in the case of the patient’s death, the patient’s
legal representative, because of the illness or injuries that:
(1) gave rise to the cause of action, suit, or claim; and
(2) necessitated the hospital care, treatment, and
maintenance.
(b) The lien provided for in subsection (a):
(1) except as provided in subsection (c), applies to any
amount obtained or recovered by the patient by settlement
or compromise rendered or entered into by the patient or
by the patient’s legal representative;
(2) is subject and subordinate to any attorney’s lien upon
the claim or cause of action;
****
(4) is not assignable; and
(5) must
(A) first be reduced by the amount of any benefits to which
the patient is entitled under the terms of any contract,
health plan, or medical insurance; and
(B) reflect credits for all payments, contractual
adjustments, write- offs, and any other benefit in favor of
the patient;
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CT-2338 | March 26, 2020 Page 10 of 16
after the hospital has made all reasonable efforts to pursue the
insurance claims in cooperation with the patient.
(c) If a settlement or compromise that is subject to subsection
(b)(1) is for an amount that would permit the patient to receive
less than twenty percent (20%) of the full amount of the
settlement or compromise if all the liens created under this
chapter were paid in full, the liens must be reduced on a pro rata
basis to the extent that will permit the patient to receive twenty
percent (20%) of the full amount.
[17] By this statute, our legislature gives the hospital a specific interest in property
otherwise accruing to the patient for the amount of the health care, treatment,
and maintenance rendered by the hospital to its patient when the hospital has
properly perfected its lien. National Ins. Ass’n v. Parkview Mem’l Hosp., 590
N.E.2d 1141, 1144 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992). With a properly perfected lien for the
amount of services provided to the hospital’s patient, the hospital has a direct
right to the insurance proceeds and other settlement funds which are paid to the
patient by the person claimed to be liable for the patient’s injuries or that
person’s agent. Id.
III. Analysis
[18] The undisputed facts disclose that Hanover offered to settle with Cantanzarite,
and pay her $100,000, the maximum amount under Smith’s liability policy. At
the summary judgment hearing, Catanzarite claimed that her unpaid medical
lien was roughly $25,000 and that the amount would be settled from her
settlement proceeds from Hanover. Catanzarite’s argument on appeal is that
she should be entitled to collect an additional $25,000, the difference between
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CT-2338 | March 26, 2020 Page 11 of 16
her UIM policy limit and the funds she will receive from Hanover after her
medical expenses are paid off.
[19] Safeco maintains that Catanzarite’s unpaid medical expenses continue to be her
responsibility, and her medical expenses should not seek to reduce Smith’s
bodily injury coverage or concomitantly increase her UIM coverage. Safeco
continues by arguing that there are several underlying factors that foreclose
Catanzarite’s claim on appeal: (1) Catanzarite’s UIM policy had an applicable
limit of $100,000, and the maximum payable limit under Smith’s bodily injury
coverage was equal to Catanzarite’s UIM policy; and (2) the medical lien does
not serve to reduce Smith’s liability coverage limit for purposes of determining
whether Catanzarite is eligible to collect under her UIM policy. Therefore,
Safeco maintains that Catanzarite’s arguments are contrary to the provisions of
Indiana Code section 27-7-5-4(b).
[20] Turning to Safeco’s first claim that we should compare Catanzarite’s UIM
policy limits to Smith’s liability insurance policy limits for the purposes of
determining whether Smith was underinsured at the time of the accident, we
find our supreme court holding in Corr insightful. In Corr, our supreme court
held that the tortfeasor’s liability limit was not the appropriate amount to
compare with the insured’s UIM policy limit for purposes of determining
whether the tortfeasor’s vehicle was underinsured. Corr, 767 N.E.2d at 540.
The plaintiffs in that case were in a group of multiple claimants and received
payment in an amount less than the liability limit on their UIM policy. Id. at
538. However, the tortfeasor’s liability limits were not less than the limits on
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CT-2338 | March 26, 2020 Page 12 of 16
the UIM policy. Id. As a result, the tortfeasor’s vehicle would only be
underinsured under Indiana law if the court compared the UIM limits with the
amount of the payment that the plaintiffs received, and the dispositive issue was
whether the court should compare the UIM policy limits to the tortfeasor’s
policy limits or to the amount that the plaintiffs recovered. Id.
[21] The Corr court determined that Indiana Code section 27-7-5-4(b) qualifies the
tortfeasor’s “limits of coverage” with the phrase “available for payment to the
insured” rather than directing courts to compare the tortfeasor’s limits with the
insured’s UIM limits. Id. at 539. The Corr court concluded that the statute’s
use of the phrase “available for payment,” indicates that it “does not express [a]
clear preference for limits-to-limits comparison.” Id. Instead, the statute’s
determination of whether a tortfeasor’s vehicle is underinsured turns on the
meaning of what amounts qualify as being “available for payment.” Id. The
Corr court then examined the meaning of “available for payment,” and
concluded that this phrase means “money present or ready for immediate use
by the insured, not amounts potentially accessible.” Id. at 540. It went on to
conclude that the tortfeasor’s liability limit was not an amount that was
“available for payment” under the statute because that amount was
“theoretically available”; instead, the appropriate amount for comparison was
the payment that the insured had received. Id.
[22] In Lakes v. Grange Mut. Cas. Co., 964 N.E.2d 796, 805 (Ind. 2012), our supreme
court further clarified that a limits-to-limits comparison is not the proper
approach to determine whether a vehicle is underinsured under Indiana law.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CT-2338 | March 26, 2020 Page 13 of 16
The Lakes court discussed the statutory definition of an underinsured motor
vehicle at length and ultimately held that “whether a vehicle is underinsured
depends, in all cases, on whether the amount received from the tortfeasor’s
policy is less than the per-person limits on UIM coverage.” Id.
[23] In the present case, Hanover agreed to pay Catanzarite $100,000, the maximum
payable under Smith’s bodily injury liability coverage, and pursuant to Corr but
contrary to Safeco’s argument on appeal, we are not permitted to compare
Catanzarite’s $100,000 UIM policy limit to Smith’s $100,000 bodily injury
liability coverage to determine if Smith was underinsured at the time of the
accident; rather, the proper assessment should be to determine the actual
amount that Catanzarite would ultimately receive from the settlement that
Hanover was offering. With that said, it brings us to our next discussion, i.e.,
whether a medical lien reduces the amount payable under Smith’s bodily injury
liability coverage for the purposes of triggering Catanzarite’s UIM benefits
under her policy.
[24] Our reading of the UIM and Hospital Lien statutes leads us to conclude that
Catanzarite’s entire argument on appeal misinterprets the purpose of the UIM
statute as well as the underlying purpose of the Hospital Lien statute. The
Hospital Lien statute provides that a lien applies to any amount obtained or
recovered by the patient through settlement. See I.C. § 32-33-4-3. The $100,000
that Hanover was offering, which is a settlement, is subject to any lien that
Memorial Hospital has against Catanzarite. See Gheae, 854 N.E.2d at 423
(holding that “[i]nsurance companies are free to limit their liability, so long as
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CT-2338 | March 26, 2020 Page 14 of 16
they do so in a manner consistent with public policy as reflected by case or
statutory law.”). Further, as the Corr court held, the “available for payment to
the insured” language has been construed by Indiana courts as follows:
‘Available’ ordinarily means ‘present or ready for immediate
use.’ Thus, ‘available for payment to the insured,’ when
describing coverage limits, is money present or ready for
immediate use by the insured, not amounts potentially accessible.
[25] Corr, 767 N.E.2d at 539-40 (citation omitted). Catanzarite does not claim that
the hospital bill is not her responsibility, and we find that when a tortfeasor’s
liability carrier pays a hospital lien to a hospital pursuant to the Hospital Lien
statute, it does so for the obvious benefit of the insured, and the insured receives
protection for her actual loss, within the limits of the policy of which she is a
beneficiary. While it is true that any payment of the lien directly to Memorial
Hospital does diminish the amount of funds actually passing through
Catanzarite’s hands, it does not diminish the $100,000 settlement proceeds she
is receiving from Hanover, to which Catanzarite is entitled under the operative
insurance policy, i.e., Smith’s bodily injury liability policy. Stated differently,
Smith’s entire $100,000 is available for Catanzarite for her immediate use and
benefit. If Catanzarite is permitted to collect an additional $25,000 from Safeco
under her UIM policy, such payment would create a windfall, and it could
ultimately increase her UIM coverage and permit an additional recovery which
would disregard the stated purpose behind Indiana’s UIM statutory coverage
scheme. See Corr, 767 N.E.2d at 540 (holding that the purpose of UIM coverage
under Indiana law is “to give the insured the recovery he or she would have
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CT-2338 | March 26, 2020 Page 15 of 16
received if the underinsured motorist [the tortfeasor] had maintained an
adequate policy of liability insurance.”). As the $100,000 under Smith’s
liability policy is adequate and readily accessible for Catanzarite’s immediate
use and benefit, any payment of Catanzarite’s medical bills can be off set from
the settlement proceeds she receives from Hanover, and payment of her lien
does not reduce the actual amount she receives from Hanover. Accordingly,
we hold that Smith had an adequate bodily injury liability policy at the time of
the accident and was therefore not an underinsured motorist and that
Catanzarite was not entitled to a claim her UIM coverage benefits from Safeco.
Thus, we affirm the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Safeco.
CONCLUSION
[26] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s entry of summary
judgment in favor of Safeco.
[27] Affirmed.
[28] Baker, J. and Brown, J. concur
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CT-2338 | March 26, 2020 Page 16 of 16
Christine Catanzarite v. Safeco Insurance Company of Indiana
Combined Opinion