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....

Stay ahead of the curve

In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.


  • Access to case data within articles (numbers, filings, courts, nature of suit, and more.)
  • Access to attached documents such as briefs, petitions, complaints, decisions, motions, etc.
  • Create custom alerts for specific article and case topics and so much more!

TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS

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!