Several family members were injured in a car accident and divided the benefits paid by the tortfeasor’s insurer. One family member – Hannah Lakes – also sought to recover under the underinsured motorist endorsement of an insurance policy that applied to all the family members involved in the accident. We reaffirm our decision in Corr v. American Family Insurance, 767 N.E.2d 535 (Ind. 2002), and hold that the tortfeasor’s vehicle was underinsured because the amount actually paid to Hannah Lakes was less than the per-person limit of liability of the underinsurance endorsement.
Hannah contends that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in Grange’s favor. She raises two issues on appeal: First, she claims that the tortfeasor’s vehicle was an underinsured motor vehicle under Indiana Code section 27-7-5-4(b). Second, she claims that Indiana Code section 27-7-5-2 requires Grange to provide UIM coverage of $50,000 per person.
We hold that the tortfeasor’s vehicle was underinsured as that term is defined in Indiana Code section 27-7-5-4(b). We therefore reverse the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in Grange’s favor and order that partial summary judgment be entered in Hannah’s favor declaring that she is entitled to UIM benefits under Anitra’s policy with Grange. Ind. Trial Rule 56(B).
Hannah next contends that Indiana Code section 27-7-5-2 requires insurers to provide UIM coverage of $50,000 per person. She devotes a substantial portion of her brief to this issue and provides a thoughtful argument based on legislative history that the Court of Appeals seemingly found persuasive and adopted. Lakes, 944 N.E.2d at 516-19. The court acknowledged that its holding on this point was in direct conflict with a different panel’s decision. Id. at 516-17 (criticizing Petty, 883 N.E.2d at 864-65).
We decline to consider this issue, however, because Anitra’s policy, by its terms, pro-vides UIM benefits of $50,000 per person. Having granted transfer, the court’s decision in this case is vacated and there is no longer a conflict. App. R. 58(A). We express no opinion on whether the Petty court correctly decided this question.
In any event, because Anitra’s policy provides UIM benefits up to $50,000 per person, we agree that there remains available for recovery $44,900 under Anitra’s policy. See I.C. § 27-7-5-5(c). Whether Hannah is entitled to any or all of this available UIM coverage will depend on the damages she is able to prove at trial.
Shepard, C.J., and Dickson, Rucker, and David, JJ., concur.