Court to take landlord-tenant insurance query

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has accepted a certified question from a federal judge, and will now consider a state law issue that it hasn't before: whether a tenant is considered a co-insured under a landlord's fire insurance policy if there's no express agreement saying otherwise.

An order dated Monday was posted online today in Auto-Owners Insurance Company a/s/o David M. Brown v. Carolyn Young, d/b/a Peddlers Corner Cafe, No. 94S00-0909-CQ-417. The case comes from the Southern District of Indiana's New Albany division, where U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker asked the state justices to weigh in on the issue according to Indiana Appellate Rule 64.

Filed in September 2008, the case involves an Orange County woman who leased property for a cafe from plaintiff David M. Brown, who was insured by the Michigan-based company Auto-Owners. The two are siblings and didn't have a formal written lease agreement, though they discussed generally the terms of the agreement. She said Brown told her he had building insurance and that she'd only need coverage for her personal property and assets, and that's what she obtained, according to the complaint.

A September 2006 fire damaged the property and Brown received nearly $84,000 from his insurance carrier, but just before the two-year-statute of limitations ran out Auto-Owners filed a complaint that alleged the fire and damage was a result of Young's negligence and that it should be able to recover the payments to Brown.

In a motion to dismiss, Young contended that Auto-Owners has no subrogation rights against her because her interests were insured under Brown's insurance policy. Judge Barker analyzed the issue and relied on Sutton v. Jondahl, 532 P. 2d 478 (C.App.Okla. 1975), which said that a tenant should be deemed a co-insured under a landlord's fire policy if there isn't a written agreement. But since that precedent isn't controlling here and this is an issue of first impression for Indiana law, Judge Barker asked the Indiana Supreme Court to consider the question.

With that, Young's federal motion to dismiss has been administratively closed pending a resolution by the Indiana Supreme Court. The state court wants simultaneous briefing in the case, and the main and response briefs are all due by Dec. 2. Any oral arguments will be scheduled at a later time, the court's order says.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?