ILNews

High court clarifies evidence designation

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court upheld a trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of a defendant and also clarified the designation of evidence in regards to Indiana Trial Rule 56(C).

In Idan (John) Filip and Valaria Filip v. Carrie Block and 1st Choice Insurance Agency, No. 75S05-0704-CV-149, the Filips filed a suit against Block and 1st Choice, alleging negligence in the selection of insurance on an apartment building they purchased in 1999.

Block was the insurance agent of the previous owner, and when the Filips purchased the building they worked with Block and told her they wanted the same coverage as the previous owner. The Filips lived in the building and rented out the other five units. During the following four years, the Filips made several changes to their policy. In April 2003, a fire substantially damaged the building, and because of insurance limitations, a major part of the loss was uninsured - the Filips discovered their non-business personal belongings were not covered in the fire.

Block and 1st Choice filed for summary judgment Aug. 1, 2005. The Filips had 30 days to respond and did not file their response until the end of September. The trial court struck the Filips' untimely designation of evidence and limited the Filips' evidence in opposition to the lines and paragraphs specified in Block's memorandum. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Block and 1st Choice because the two-year statute of limitations for negligence started on the date of the initial insurance coverage in 1999.

The Court of Appeals held the Filips could rely on the pages identified in the defendant's motion and were not limited to lines and paragraphs specified in the memorandum. Also, the Court of Appeals held the statute of limitations did not bar the Filips' complaint because the statutory period for negligence against an insurance agent starts to run when the claim is denied.

In the Supreme Court decision, Justice Theodore Boehm held the designation of evidence in support or opposition to a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 56(C) may be accomplished in several places, but must be done so consistently. The entire designation of evidence must be in a single place, whether as a separate document or appendix, or as a part of a motion or other filing. And, a party may rely on designations by an opposing party, even if inconsistently designated in different places. Block tried to allow only specific lines and paragraphs to be used by the Filips; however, the Filips can rely on the entire designated pages identified in the defendants' motion in opposing summary judgment, Justice Boehm wrote.

In regards to when the accrual date for a negligence action against an insurance agent begins, the Supreme Court agreed with the trial court. The trial court determined the statute of limitations began to run at the time of coverage. The Filips argued their negligence claim began when the fire occurred. Justice Boehm wrote in this case, all of the alleged problems the Filips claim their policy lacked could have been ascertained by reading the policy at any point before the fire. With the exception of their nonbusiness personal property, the limitations in this case began with the activation of the policy.

The Filips and Block both erroneously believed the Filips policy covered the Filips' nonbusiness personal property, and the Filips claim they relied on Block's statements they were covered.

"In sum, for the purposes of the summary judgment, there is evidence that Block breached the duty of care because she incorrectly believed nonbusiness personal property was covered. There are no damages from this breach, however," wrote Justice Boehm.
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT