FILED
Sep 11 2026, 8:51 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
IN THE
Court of Appeals of Indiana
Brittney Best,
Appellant-Plaintiff
v.
The Standard Fire Insurance Company d/b/a Travelers
Insurance and CSAA General Insurance Company d/b/a AAA
Insurance,
Appellees-Defendants
September 11, 2026
Court of Appeals Case No.
26A-CT-459
Appeal from the Tipton Circuit Court
The Honorable Thomas R. Lett, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
80C01-2504-CT-509
Court of Appeals of Indiana Opinion 26A-CT-459 September 11, 2026 Page 1 of 13
Opinion by Judge Vaidik
Judges Altice and Foley concur.
Vaidik, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] After Brittney Best and Jeffrey Schooley’s 17-year-old son was killed in a car
accident, the tortfeasor’s insurer paid a settlement in the amount of its perperson liability limit for bodily injury or $100,000. Half was paid to Best
($50,000) and half to Schooley ($50,000), who were never married to one
another. At the time of the accident, Best’s husband had an auto-insurance
policy with The Standard Fire Insurance Company d/b/a Travelers Insurance
covering both Best and her son, and the car her son was riding in was insured
by CSAA General Insurance Company d/b/a AAA Insurance. Each policy
had underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage with a per-person limit of $100,000.
Since Best’s payout from the tortfeasor’s insurance was only $50,000, she made
claims for UIM benefits against both Travelers and AAA. After Travelers and
AAA denied Best’s claims, she brought this action.
[2] Travelers and AAA moved to dismiss Best’s complaint. They argued that the
tortfeasor’s car was not underinsured because the combined amount paid to the
parents from the tortfeasor’s insurance equaled the UIM coverage limit under
each policy. Best moved for partial summary judgment, contending that the
relevant amount was not the total that the tortfeasor’s insurer paid but the
Court of Appeals of Indiana Opinion 26A-CT-459 September 11, 2026 Page 2 of 13
amount she personally received. The trial court agreed with the insurers. But
our Supreme Court has made clear that for purposes of determining whether a
motor vehicle is underinsured under Indiana’s UIM statute, the proper
comparison is what the claimant actually received from the tortfeasor’s policy
and the per-person limit of the applicable UIM coverage. We therefore reverse
the trial court’s dismissal of Best’s complaint and remand for entry of partial
summary judgment for Best and a determination of which insurer(s) must pay
her UIM benefits.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] One night in August 2023, 17-year-old Jaxson Schooley was riding in a car
driven by his cousin. A driver traveling in the opposite direction crossed the
center line and collided with the cousin’s car head-on. Jaxson was pronounced
dead at the scene. Jaxson’s parents, Brittney Best and Jeffrey Schooley, were
never married, and Best had primary physical custody of Jaxson before his
death.
[4] Several insurance policies were implicated by the crash. The tortfeasor’s car was
insured by State Farm, and the policy’s liability limit for bodily injury was
$100,000 per person. The cousin’s car was insured by his father’s (Jaxson’s
uncle’s) policy with AAA Insurance. The AAA policy included UIM coverage
with a limit of $100,000 per person for bodily injury. Additionally, Best’s
husband had an auto policy with Travelers Insurance, which also included
UIM coverage with a limit of $100,000 per person for bodily injury. The parties
Court of Appeals of Indiana Opinion 26A-CT-459 September 11, 2026 Page 3 of 13
do not dispute that Jaxson and Best each qualified as insureds under both
policies.
[5] A year after the accident, State Farm paid its full per-person liability limit of
$100,000—$50,000 to Best and $50,000 to Schooley. Thereafter, Best made
claims against Travelers and AAA for $50,000—the balance of the $100,000
UIM limit for each policy after deducting the $50,000 Best received from State
Farm. When Travelers and AAA denied the claims, Best sued them for $50,000
each. Travelers and AAA moved to dismiss the complaint under Indiana Trial
Rule 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. They
argued that the tortfeasor’s car wasn’t underinsured because State Farm paid a
total of $100,000 to Best and Schooley for Jaxson’s death, which is equal to the
$100,000 UIM coverage limit under each policy. Best later moved for partial
summary judgment, seeking a declaration that she is entitled to recover up to
$50,000 in UIM benefits from AAA and up to $50,000 in UIM benefits from
Travelers.
[6] After a hearing on the parties’ motions, the trial court denied Best’s motion and
granted the insurers’, dismissing Best’s complaint. The court found that “the
tortfeasor’s insurer paid the full $100,000 per-person limit to resolve the singular
wrongful death arising from that injury,” and thus Best wasn’t entitled to UIM
benefits. Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 p. 10.
Court of Appeals of Indiana Opinion 26A-CT-459 September 11, 2026 Page 4 of 13 [7] Best now appeals. 1
Discussion and Decision
[8] Best argues that the trial court erred in dismissing her complaint and in denying
her motion for partial summary judgment. Our review of both a Rule 12(B)(6)
motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment is de novo. Doe v.
Adams, 53 N.E.3d 483, 492 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied. In reviewing a
12(B)(6) motion, we take the facts alleged in the complaint as true, consider all
allegations in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and draw every
reasonable inference in that party’s favor. Residences at Ivy Quad Unit Owners
Ass’n v. Ivy Quad Dev., LLC, 179 N.E.3d 977, 981 (Ind. 2022). And summary
judgment is appropriate if, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the
nonmoving party, “‘the designated evidentiary matter shows that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.’” Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000, 1003 (Ind.
2014) (quoting Ind. Trial Rule 56(C)).
[9] Both the insurers’ motion to dismiss and Best’s motion for partial summary
judgment turn on whether the tortfeasor’s car was underinsured. Best contends
that it was because the $50,000 she received from State Farm, the tortfeasor’s
insurer, for Jaxson’s death is less than the $100,000 UIM coverage limits in the
Travelers and AAA policies. Travelers and AAA argue that the car was not
1
We thank the Indiana Trial Lawyers Association for its informative amicus brief in support of Best.
Court of Appeals of Indiana Opinion 26A-CT-459 September 11, 2026 Page 5 of 13
underinsured because the aggregate $100,000 State Farm paid for Jaxson’s
death ($50,000 to Best and $50,000 to Schooley) is equal to their policies’ UIM
limits.
[10] We first turn to Indiana’s UIM statute, which defines “underinsured motor
vehicle” as “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.” Ind. Code § 27-7-5-4(b). In Corr
v. American Family Insurance, our Supreme Court explained that the amount
“‘available for payment to the insured,’ when describing coverage limits, is
money present or ready for immediate use by the insured.” 767 N.E.2d 535,
540 (Ind. 2002).
[11] Best argues that in this context, “the insured” refers to the claimant (herself),
and the relevant amount is the $50,000 she personally received from State Farm
for Jaxson’s death. Travelers and AAA assert that Jaxson, not Best, is the
relevant “insured” and that the amount “available for payment” is the total
$100,000 State Farm paid as a result of Jaxson’s death, not what Best
personally received. Corr reveals that Best’s interpretation is correct.
[12] In Corr, 15-year-old Janel Corr died from injuries she sustained in a car
accident, and four other passengers were seriously injured. The tortfeasor’s van
was insured by two policies, each with bodily-injury liability limits of $300,000
per accident. The tortfeasor’s insurers each tendered $300,000, which was
Court of Appeals of Indiana Opinion 26A-CT-459 September 11, 2026 Page 6 of 13
allocated among several claimants, including Janel’s parents, James Corr and
Pamela Corr. James and Pamela, who were divorced, each received $57,500 of
the total $600,000. James and Pamela both had their own auto-insurance
policies with American Family Insurance (AFI), both with UIM coverage of
$100,000 per person. The Corrs sued AFI for UIM benefits under their
respective policies, and the trial court granted summary judgment to AFI on the
ground that the tortfeasor’s van was not underinsured.
[13] On appeal, the Corrs argued that under the UIM statute, the tortfeasor’s van
was underinsured because the $57,500 paid to each of them was less than the
$100,000 per-person limits of their respective UIM coverage. AFI claimed that
the proper comparison was the liability limits of the tortfeasor’s policies to the
limits of the Corrs’ UIM coverage. The Supreme Court agreed with the Corrs,
explaining that Indiana’s UIM statute “turns on the amount of the ‘coverage
limits available for payment to the insured’ not the overall coverage limits of the
policy.” 767 N.E.2d at 539. And “available for payment to the insured,” the
Court held, means “present or ready for immediate use by the insured, not
amounts potentially accessible.” Id. at 540. Thus, the Court concluded, “the
amount ‘available’ is the $57,500 each Corr actually recovered.” Id.
[14] Importantly, the Corr Court never considered the aggregate $115,000 ($57,500 x
2) paid to the Corrs for their daughter’s death as the dispositive amount. See id.
at 540 (“The issue is whether we are to compare the [tortfeasor’s] policy limits .
. . or the amount recovered ($57,500) to the amount of each Corr’s UIM
coverage.”). This is because the relevant “insured” for purposes of determining
Court of Appeals of Indiana Opinion 26A-CT-459 September 11, 2026 Page 7 of 13
the amount “available for payment to the insured” was not the daughter; the
Corrs, as the claimants, were the relevant insureds under their respective
policies. If Travelers and AAA’s interpretation of the UIM statute were correct,
the Supreme Court would have denied UIM benefits to the Corrs because the
total $115,000 paid as a result of their daughter’s death exceeds the $100,000
per-person UIM limit of each of their policies.
[15] Applying Corr here, the dispositive amount for purposes of determining whether
the tortfeasor’s car was underinsured is $50,000—the amount that Best, the
claimant, recovered from State Farm, the tortfeasor’s liability insurer. And
because this amount is less than the $100,000 UIM limits under the Travelers
and AAA policies, the tortfeasor’s car was underinsured.
[16] This conclusion is bolstered by Lakes v. Grange Mutual Casualty Co., where the
Supreme Court reaffirmed Corr and reiterated that “the proper comparison in
determining whether the tortfeasor’s vehicle was underinsured [i]s . . . what the
claimant actually received and the UIM policy limit.” 964 N.E.2d 796, 803
(Ind. 2012); see also id. at 805 (“In Corr, we held that the relevant comparison is
the amount of money ‘available for payment’ to the claimant through the
tortfeasor’s policy as compared to the per-person limits of the UIM policy.”
(emphasis added)). Although Lakes involved a surviving victim seeking UIM
benefits based on her own injuries as opposed to parents seeking benefits as a
result of their child’s death, the Court there 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. at
Court of Appeals of Indiana Opinion 26A-CT-459 September 11, 2026 Page 8 of 13
805 (emphasis added). Lakes’s references to the “claimant” and the amount
“received” reinforce that the determinative amount here is the $50,000 that
State Farm paid to Best specifically, not the total amount State Farm paid to
both Best and Schooley as a result of Jaxson’s death.
[17] Despite Corr’s clear holding and reaffirmance in Lakes, Travelers and AAA rely
on the Child Wrongful Death Act (CWDA) and its application to UIM claims
in Hanna v. Indiana Farmers Mutual Insurance Co., 963 N.E.2d 72 (Ind. Ct. App.
2012), trans. denied, to maintain that the relevant amount for comparison is the
total State Farm paid for Jaxson’s death. In Hanna, after the Hannas’ son was
killed in a crash caused by two at-fault drivers, the drivers’ insurers paid the
Hannas their respective policies’ liability limits for a total of $300,000.
Together, the Hannas were insured under the same auto policy with Indiana
Farmers, which included UIM coverage with a $250,000 per-person limit. The
Hannas argued that they were each entitled to the per-person limit because they
were both named insureds under the Indiana Farmers policy. Treating the
$300,000 payout as $150,000 payments to each of them, the Hannas argued that
because neither of them had received the $250,000 per-person limit, they were
each entitled to $100,000 in UIM benefits.
[18] A panel of this Court held that the Hannas couldn’t recover under their Indiana
Farmers policy in their individual capacities because their “claim arises from
the CWDA, . . . not in a personal capacity,” and “nothing in the statute
permits each parent to maintain a separate wrongful death claim in his or her
own right.” Hanna, 963 N.E.2d at 77-78. And we held that “even assuming
Court of Appeals of Indiana Opinion 26A-CT-459 September 11, 2026 Page 9 of 13
solely for the sake of argument that the Hannas are otherwise entitled to recover
under their [own] policy,” they could not do so under the UIM provisions of
their policy. Id. at 77. We explained that if more than one person had been
injured in the accident, each would be entitled to recover the per-person limit;
but because the Hannas’ son was the only insured who suffered bodily injury,
the most they could recover in UIM benefits was a single per-person limit of
$250,000, not $250,000 each. And because the $300,000 they recovered from
the tortfeasors’ insurers exceeded their own policy’s $250,000 per-person limit,
they were not entitled to UIM benefits.
[19] While we agree with the outcome in Hanna, in our view, the CWDA is not
what should have driven the result. The CWDA provides parents a cause of
action against the person who caused their child’s wrongful death and sets forth
the types of damages the parents may recover. The action must be brought by
“the father and mother jointly, or either of them by naming the other parent as
a codefendant to answer as to his or her interest.” I.C. § 34-23-2-1(c)(1). But the
Hannas’ claim was not that kind of claim—it was a contract claim against their
own insurer for UIM benefits, not a claim against the drivers who caused their
son’s death. And the CWDA “does not affect or supersede any other right,
remedy, or defense provided by any other law.” Id. at (j). So the CWDA’s
requirement that the parents bring a single, joint wrongful-death action never
applied to the Hannas’ UIM claim, and it shouldn’t have been the basis for
rejecting their individual claims. The real problem with the Hannas’ argument
was simpler: because their son was the only insured who suffered bodily injury,
Court of Appeals of Indiana Opinion 26A-CT-459 September 11, 2026 Page 10 of 13
only one per-person limit was available under their joint UIM policy—not one
limit for each parent. 2
[20] Best’s suit, like the Hannas’, is a contract claim against UIM carriers, not a
wrongful-death claim against a tortfeasor, so the CWDA’s joint-action
requirement doesn’t apply. Unlike the Hannas, Best is not claiming a second
per-person limit under a UIM policy she shares with another insured pressing
the same claim. She is claiming the remainder of the Travelers and AAA
policies’ per-person limit for Jaxson’s death, which is in line with Corr. As
explained above, Best is entitled to the remainder of the $100,000 per-person
limit because the amount she received from State Farm is less than $100,000.
[21] Travelers and AAA assert that adopting Best’s approach would “produce
absurd results,” Travelers’s Br. p. 10, and “allow statutory beneficiaries to
manufacture UIM exposure by allocating a single tortfeasor payment among
themselves in shares below the UIM limit,” AAA’s Br. p. 16. But as Best points
out, the Supreme Court has already considered this possibility:
We recognize that the view we take of the [UIM] statute creates
it[s] own anomalies. If, as here, there are multiple claimants they
may reduce the “amount available” to any single claimant below
the minimum UIM coverage even if the limits if applied to only
one claimant would be adequate. We conclude that the
legislature has chosen to look to “available” amounts, and
accordingly accept this anomaly as less problematic than leaving
2
As Best highlights, Hanna has never been cited in another UIM case.
Court of Appeals of Indiana Opinion 26A-CT-459 September 11, 2026 Page 11 of 13
the victim of an underinsured motorist worse off than the victim
of a wholly uninsured motorist.
Corr, 767 N.E.2d at 540. This “view of the statute as a full-recovery, remedial
measure,” id., prioritizes complete recovery for claimants over protecting
insurers from the risk of “manufacture[d] UIM exposure.” And in any event,
such risk is not present here because, as explained above, Best is the sole
claimant for UIM benefits.
[22] Because the $50,000 Best received from State Farm is less than the $100,000
limit for UIM coverage in both the AAA and Travelers policies, the trial court
erred in concluding that Best is not entitled to UIM benefits. We therefore
reverse the dismissal of Best’s complaint and denial of her motion for partial
summary judgment. Although Best is entitled to $50,000 in UIM benefits, no
argument was made in the trial court about which insurer(s) would have to pay.
Because neither insurer addressed how liability would be apportioned between
them if the tortfeasor’s car was found to be underinsured, we leave that question
for the trial court on remand. Accordingly, we remand for entry of partial
summary judgment that Best is entitled to $50,000 in UIM benefits and a
determination of how she will collect the $50,000.
[23] Reversed and remanded.
Altice, J., and Foley, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana Opinion 26A-CT-459 September 11, 2026 Page 12 of 13 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT
Nicholas C. Deets
Tyler J. Zipes
Hovde Dassow + Deets, LLC
Indianapolis, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY D/B/A TRAVELERS INSURANCE
Michael R. Giordano
C. Chase Wilson
Lewis Wagner & Trimble
Indianapolis, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
CSAA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY D/B/A AAA INSURANCE
Mark A. Metzger
Robert M. Taggart
Metzger Rosta, LLP
Noblesville, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR AMICUS CURIAE
INDIANA TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION
Scott A. Faultless
Craig Kelley & Faultless
Indianapolis, Indiana
Court of Appeals of Indiana Opinion 26A-CT-459 September 11, 2026 Page 13 of 13