State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Kimberly S. Earl and The Estate of Jerry Earl

I respectfully disagree with the majority's decision to reverse the jury verdict and remand for a new trial. As an issue of first impression, State Farm disputes the admissibility at trial of the bodily injury limit for UM coverage in the Earls' policy. Specifically, relying on a relevancy argument, State Farm asserts that the UM coverage limits should be excluded because *1013the amount of coverage is irrelevant to the issue of damages that is being decided. I disagree.

While State Farm is correct that no Indiana case has decided this issue on point, case law exists where a policy's UM limits were…