ILNews

Appeals court reverses, finds judgment on pleadings for insurer

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Orange Circuit Court judge erred when he failed to approve an insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and the Court of Appeals on Tuesday ordered the case remanded and such a ruling entered.

On interlocutory appeal, the panel ordered judgment on the pleadings in favor of the insurer in Consolidated Insurance Company v. National Water Services LLC,  59A05-1212-PL-632. National Water sued CIC in an attempt to recover $497,500 under a policy for dishonest employees.

NWS sought to recover after it had sued a former employee, David Arnold, claiming that he had misappropriated $1,178,054 from the company. Arnold removed the suit to U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana in New Albany. Arnold said the accusations were false, and he filed a counterclaim of libel and defamation against NWS.

The water company settled and released Arnold, who agreed to pay NWS a sum of $30,000, according to the record. But settling with Arnold voided the insurer’s coverage, and CIC therefore is entitled to judgment on the pleadings, the panel held.

“NWS settled with Arnold and, in so doing, executed the Release which released Arnold ‘for all claims which [NWS] has or could have asserted, known and unknown, arising out of the employment of Arnold by NWS both as an employee and an independent contractor,’” Judge Elaine Brown wrote for the panel.

“This Release ‘after loss’ destroyed CIC’s right of subrogation and was a breach of contract on NWS’s part, therefore discharging CIC from obligation under the Policy to provide coverage. Accordingly, we conclude that the court erred when it denied CIC’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT