dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. Indiana Code § 29-l-14-l(f) does not apply to bar Richie’s lawsuit to the extént he seeks to realize upon any casualty insurance proceeds available to indemnify against decedent’s negligence, and does not seek to affect any interest in the assets of the estate. As noted in the majority, the relevant portion of the non-claims statute reads as follows:
Nothing in this section shall affect or prevent the enforcement of a claim for injury to person or damage to property arising out of negligence against the estate of a deceased tort feasor within the period of the statute of limitations provided for the tort action. A tort claim against the estate of- the tort feasor may be opened or reopened and suit filed against the special representative of the estate within the period of the statute of limitations of the tort. Aiiy recovery against the tort feasor’s estate shall not affect any interest in the assets of the estate unless the suit was filed within the time allowed for filing claims against the estate. The rules of pleading and procedure in such cases shall be the same as apply in ordinary civil actions.
Ind.Code § 29-l-14-l(f) (emphasis added). This section, which relates to claims of negligence, provides that: 1) negligence claims may be sued upon without first filing in the probate claims docket, and 2) such action may be instituted at any time within the period of the statute of limitations for negligence claims. Henry’s Probate Law & Practice 1B, Non-Claim Statutes § 10, p. 309 (7th ed.1978). If, however, the non-claim statute has otherwise run, a. judgment in a negligence action cannot affect the distribution of the estate to the heirs, legatees or distributees. Id. “The significance of this clause is its effect against an insurance carrier of the decased [sic].” Id.; Serban v. Halsey, 533 N.E.2d 162, 163 (Ind.Ct.App.1989) (where plaintiffs lawsuit seeks only insurance proceeds, it does not affect the assets of the estate). Under Ind.Code § 29-1 — 14—1(f), a belated tort claim cannot affect the distribution of the assets of the estate, but is limited to insurance coverage available to indemnify against decedent’s negligence. IB Henry’s at 310. Or, stated another way, the judgment creditor may not share in the estate assets, but may realize upon any casualty insurance carried by the decedent. Id.; Slater v. Stoffel, 140 Ind.App. 131, 221 N.E.2d 688, 691 (1966) (Ind.Code § 29-1-14-1(f) provides that a negligence action may be pursued provided the recovery does not affect the distribution of estate assets), trans. denied.2
*1224In the present ease, Richie’s negligence claim was timely filed according to the ordinary rules of pleading and procedure in civil cases. .The decedent’s estate is only the nominal defendant because no claim has been made and no lawsuit has been filed seeking to recover against the estate assets. Nevertheless, Indiana Farmers now seeks, through intervention, to avoid its contractual obligation to indemnify against decedent’s negligence.
Based on the above, Appellant-Intervenor Indiana Farmers Mutual Insurance Company is not entitled to summary judgment. Therefore, the trial court should be affirmed.
. The cases of Clark v. Estate of Slavens, 687 N.E.2d 246 (Ind.Ct.App.1997), and Pasley v. American Underwriters, Inc., 433 N.E.2d 838 (Ind.Ct.App.1982) are distinguishable from the present case because they do not address the insurance proceeds exception for negligence claims. However, I would respectfully disagree with these cases to the extent that they have been interpreted 'to exclude claims which do not affect any interest in estate assets.