The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded an Indiana statute dealing with salvage titles is ambiguous and it should be up
to the state's highest court to interpret it.
In Larry D. Storie v. Randy's Auto Sales, LLC, et al., No. 09-1675, the Circuit Court certified the question
of whether an entity that buys and later sells a wrecked vehicle is required to apply for a salvage title under Indiana Code
Section 9-22-3-11(e) when it no longer owns the vehicle when it receives the certificate of title.
U.S. District Judge William T. Lawrence of the Southern District of Indiana ruled no and granted summary judgment in favor
of Randy's Auto Sales in Storie's lawsuit against the dealer. Judge Lawrence found a lack of continuing ownership
absolved an acquiring person of any obligation to apply for a salvage title when it receives the certificate of title.
Storie bought a truck that had been involved in a fatal accident in 2003 in Indiana. St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co., the
insurer of the truck, applied for a title as proof of ownership but didn't apply for a salvage title. The truck was sold
several times - including by Randy's in Indiana - before St. Paul finally received the title. Storie purchased the truck
from a truck center in Missouri. When Randy's received the title from St. Paul, it forwarded it on to the purchaser of
the truck, which made its way to Storie.
When Storie learned the truck was involved in the fatal accident, he brought a suit against Randy's in federal court
in the Southern District of Indiana. He believed Randy's violated I.C. Section 9-22-3-11(e), which says "Any other
person acquiring a wrecked or damaged motor vehicle ... which acquisition is not evidenced by a certificate of salvage title,
shall apply to the bureau within thirty-one (31) days after receipt of the certificate of title for a certificate of salvage
title."
Circuit Judge Richard Cudahy noted the statute in question is "not a model of clarity" and competing interpretations
of the statute means it's ambiguous. The Circuit Court ruled the present case turns on the meaning of the statute and
certified the issue to the Indiana Supreme Court to interpret.
"Since we decline to follow (Riha v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.) and (Storie v. Duckett Truck Center Inc.)
and because we conclude that Randy's was properly subject to the provisions of the Indiana salvage title, the interpretation
of Ind. Code § 9-22-3-11(e) is determinative of the present case," wrote Judge Cudahy. "Since there is no clear
controlling Indiana precedent, it is appropriate to certify this issue to the Supreme Court of Indiana under both Indiana
Rule of Appellate Procedure 64 and our Circuit Rule 52."














vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!
Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.
With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.
Jack, I was only responding to bill's comment of tying everybody in government together. I agree with you though, it takes one bad apple to ruin the bunch.. As in any profession. What's truly unfair is when somebody violates someone's trust and takes complete advantage of someone
John’s comment is unfair. The majority of attorneys can be trusted. Unfortunately, all it takes is one greedy, unscrupulous, immoral attorney to jade the public.