Baker, J.
Two motorists were involved in a car accident. During the subsequent legal proceedings, the Indiana Insurance Guaranty Association (IIGA) intervened as the real party in interest, and the trial court substituted the IIGA for the original insurance company defendant. The IIGA filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the tortfeasor’s insurance company’s denial of coverage did not render him uninsured such that the other motorist seeking damages could not recover under his own insurance policy’s provision on uninsured automobiles. The IIGA brings this interlocutory appeal following the trial court’s denial of its motion. Finding no error with the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss, we affirm.
….
Whether Torres’s vehicle is considered an uninsured motor vehicle under the law is a matter of first impression. Our General Assembly enacted a statute governing uninsured motorist vehicle coverage2 because it wanted to ensure that motorists have insurance coverage in case of accidents and collisions. Indeed, our General Assembly considers uninsured motorist coverage so important that it requires all insurance companies selling insurance in our state to provide it to every motorist who purchases a motor vehicle insurance liability policy. I.C. § 27-7-5-2(a). The statute governing uninsured motorist vehicle coverage “provides broad protection to insureds injured in accidents with financially irresponsible motorists.” United Nat’l. Ins. Co. v. DePrizio, 705 N.E.2d 455, 464 (Ind. 1999). “Because the statute is remedial, it is to be liberally construed.” Corr v. Am. Family Ins., 767 N.E.2d 535, 540 (Ind. 2002).
A tortfeasor vehicle that had its coverage denied falls within the category of “motor vehicle[s] not otherwise in compliance with the financial responsibility requirements,” I.C. § 27-7-5-4(a), because a denial of coverage necessarily means that, although the tortfeasor vehicle technically has insurance, the tortfeasor is without insurance that can actually cover the damages. In other words, following a denial of coverage, a tortfeasor vehicle cannot be in compliance with our statutory financial responsibility requirements. We therefore interpret the statute’s definition of “uninsured motor vehicle” to include motor vehicles that had liability insurance at the time of an accident but that were later denied coverage.
….
We conclude that, as a matter of law and public policy, a vehicle that has liability insurance but was denied coverage meets the statutory definition of uninsured motor vehicle. We also conclude that Torres’s vehicle meets Affirmative’s definition of uninsured automobile. Accordingly, Smith alleged in his complaint a set of circumstances under which he would be entitled to relief. The trial court did not err in denying the IIGA’s motion to dismiss.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Mathias, J., concurs. Altice, J., concurs in result with a separate opinion.
Altice, Judge, concurring in result.
I concur with the decision to affirm the trial court’s judgment denying IIGA’s motion to dismiss, but I write separately because my reasoning differs somewhat from that of the majority.
….I would find the language of the Affirmative policy’s definition of “uninsured automobile” to be ambiguous with respect to whether t includes an automobile that was insured at the time of the accident, but coverage was subsequently disclaimed due to the tortfeasor’s breach of his or her insurance contract.
….