less..
In Taele, the plaintiffs were traveling on an interstate and their thirteen-year-old daughter was a passenger in another vehicle traveling behind them. An uninsured driver crossed the median and struck the vehicle in which the daughter was traveling, killing her. The plaintiffs saw the accident happen in their rear-view mirror. Although a piece of debris from the accident may have struck the plaintiffs' windshield, neither of them suffered any direct physical impact or injury in the accident.

The plaintiffs had an automobile insurance policy, including UM coverage, from State Farm. The policy's definition of compensable "bodily injury" at the time of the accident was "bodily injury to a person and sickness, disease or death which results from it." State Farm refused to pay UM benefits to the plaintiffs for their emotional distress connected with their daughter's death. The plaintiffs filed an action against State Farm, State Farm moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted that motion. The plaintiffs appealed.

On Appeal, the Court discussed the different tests that allowed a NEID claim absent a physical injury: (1) the "direct impact" test, first recognized in Shuamber v. Henderson, 579 N.E.2d 452 (Ind. 1991), and (2) the "direct involvement" test, first recognized in Groves v. Taylor, 729 N.E.2d 569 (Ind. 2000). The first test requires that the "plaintiff sustain[] a direct impact by the negligence of another." The second merely requires that "the plaintiff actually witnessed or came on the scene soon after the death or severe injury of a loved one." The Court noted that this case was brought under the test established in Groves (finding that the fact that a piece of debris struck the windshield did not demonstrate a direct impact). It then held that a plaintiff who brought a case under the direct involvement test did not allege a bodily injury.



While it seemed "slightly incongruous that persons having NIED claims arising in a Shuamber-type scenario may be entitled to recover UM benefits for 'bodily injury,' but those having equally valid NIED claims arising in a Groves-type scenario are not so entitled," the Court presumed that the Indiana Supreme Court's prior decisions would have indicated its desire to resolve this incongruity.

Based on this decision, litigation over NEID claims is likely to focus on whether a plaintiff was directly impacted by the negligent conduct, since that issue will have a large impact on whether an insurance policy covers a particular action.

Brad A. Catlin
Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC
Learn more about Brad and contact us
Download a copy of this article here