ILNews

COA adopts common-sense rule on providing insurance policies

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has adopted a common-sense rule many other courts throughout the country have implemented, in requiring insurers to provide copies of their insurance policies to the insured if they ask for one following a loss.

If that doesn’t happen, the state’s intermediate appellate court holds that the insurer would then be banned from arguing in subsequent litigation that a policy holder didn’t comply with all the terms and couldn’t receive coverage.

The ruling comes today in Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Gary Hughes, 18A02-1006-PL-659, a case out of Delaware Circuit Court where Judge John Feick had denied a summary judgment from Auto-Owners Insurance that a home fire insurance coverage suit was barred by a one-year statute of limitations.

An arson fire in March 2002 destroyed Gary Hughes’ home in Eaton, and part of his insurance policy with Auto-Owners said that the company couldn’t be sued unless there’s full compliance with all of the policy terms and that the suit must be filed within a year of the loss or damage. Hughes hired a public adjuster as his agent and 11 months later, Auto-Owners denied the claim due to “arson, fraud, misrepresentation, false swearing, and lack of determination of ownership or an insurable interest.” Hughes filed a breach of contract and breach of duty suit in May 2003, 14 months following the loss.

The insurance company argued that Hughes’ suit should be barred because it wasn’t filed within a year, but the trial court twice denied summary judgment motions. The court ruled in favor of Auto-Owners on the punitive damage claim but denied the bad faith claim and one-year limitation defense, and a jury awarded Hughes $166,792.83 in damages.

One of the issues on appeal became whether Hughes had received a copy of his insurance policy following the loss, as he claimed to have requested. He argued that Auto-Owners shouldn’t be able to raise that claim, as it didn’t provide him with a copy, while the insurance company contended it had supplied him with one.

Specifically, the appellate panel found that the principles of equity and fairness create a limited duty to provide a copy of an insurance policy when the insured has requested one, and that failure to discharge that duty would prevent an insurer from asserting noncompliance with policy terms. Citing caselaw from Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin, the Hoosier appellate panel adopted that rule as its own.

“We think that this rule reflects the realities of the typical relationship between an insurance company and an insured, at least when the insured is a private individual,” Judge Cale Bradford wrote. “Very few insureds will ever read, much less attempt to understand, their insurance policies, unless of course they happen to suffer a loss. We also venture to guess that very few homeowners will ever take the precaution of storing a copy of their policy at a secure location outside of the home, making it that much more likely that a copy will be destroyed in a loss and not be available when needed most.”

But even with that holding, Hughes lost because the case record proved that Auto-Owners had supplied him with a copy of his policy within a month of his loss in March 2002. Therefore, Auto-Owners should have been able to raise the one-year limitation argument and should have prevailed on that point, the appellate court ruled.

The case was reversed and remanded to the trial court with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of Auto-Owners.

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. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  2. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  3. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  4. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  5. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

ADVERTISEMENT