Indiana Supreme Court Shows Limits Of 'All Sums' Allocations

Law360, New York (May 28, 2015, 10:44 AM EDT) -- In the wake of the Indiana Supreme Court decision in Allstate Ins. Co. v. Dana Corp., 759 N.E.2d 1049 (Ind. 2001) or "Dana II" as it is often called, most knowledgeable insurance coverage lawyers, claims professionals and risk managers would describe Indiana as an "all sums" jurisdiction. Indeed, the Indiana Supreme Court did adopt the minority "all sums" approach to allocation in Dana II. Yet, the Indiana Supreme Court reminded us last week that, even in jurisdictions with law applying an "all sums" allocation, there are substantial limitations on the "all sums" approach and a pro rata allocation nonetheless may be applied. More generally, last week's decision of the Indiana Supreme Court serves as an important reminder that general descriptions of governing legal principals must yield to particular policy language....

Law360 is on it, so you are, too.

A Law360 subscription puts you at the center of fast-moving legal issues, trends and developments so you can act with speed and confidence. Over 200 articles are published daily across more than 60 topics, industries, practice areas and jurisdictions.


A Law360 subscription includes features such as

  • Daily newsletters
  • Expert analysis
  • Mobile app
  • Advanced search
  • Judge information
  • Real-time alerts
  • 450K+ searchable archived articles

And more!

Experience Law360 today with a free 7-day trial.

Start Free Trial

Already a subscriber? Click here to login

Hello! I'm Law360's automated support bot.

How can I help you today?

For example, you can type:
  • I forgot my password
  • I took a free trial but didn't get a verification email
  • How do I sign up for a newsletter?
Ask a question!