ILNews

COA: Insurance company can't deny coverage

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld a trial court's decision that an insurance company was estopped from denying coverage to the suspected driver of a car because the company failed to properly preserve its right to deny the driver coverage.

In Founders Insurance Co. v. Virginia Olivares, Linda M. Vara, Daniel R. Farley, AAA Chicago Motor Club Insurance Co., No. 45A04-0712-CV-743, Founders appealed the trial court's declaratory judgment in favor of Virginia Olivares and other appellees, which ruled the insurance company was barred from denying coverage to Daniel Farley because he was an "excluded driver" under the car insurance policy of his mother, Linda Vara.

Vara insured a 1992 Oldsmobile Cutlass with Founders, which she co-owned with Farley, who was specifically listed under the policy as an excluded driver. Also included in the policy is liability coverage that extended to any "family member," under which coverage for Farley would fall.

Virginia Olivares was in a car accident in which the driver of the other vehicle - the Cutlass owned by Vara and Farley - was unidentified because he or she fled the scene. Farley later reported the car as stolen. Olivares believed Farley was driving the vehicle at the time and filed suit against Vara, Farley, and AAA. As a result, Founders provided defense counsel to Vara and Farley but later sent unsigned letters without Founders' letterhead to Vara and Farley saying if Farley was found to be driving the Cutlass, defense and indemnification would be withdrawn for him. The letter also misidentified Farley as David Farley instead of Daniel.

After Olivares filed an amended complaint adding a count against Founders, the company filed a counterclaim seeking declaratory judgment that it wasn't obligated to provide coverage to Farley for the accident because he wasn't insured under the policy.

Founders was estopped from raising the defense of non-coverage because it had sufficient knowledge of facts that would have permitted it to deny coverage, Founders assumed the defense of Farley without obtaining an effective reservation of rights agreement, and Farley suffered some type of harm or prejudice as a result, wrote Judge Carr Darden.

Founders claimed the unsigned letters it mailed to Vara and Farley properly preserved its right to later rely on the "excluded driver" defense, but the company provided no evidence to confirm Vara or Farley ever received the letters, wrote the judge.

And, because there was no proper reservation of rights by Founders as to the "excluded driver" defense, Farley wasn't aware at the time he accepted defense counsel from Founders that the company would later deny coverage if it found he were the driver of the Cutlass. As such, Farley couldn't make an intelligent choice between retaining his own counsel and accepting Founder's defense counsel, Judge Darden wrote.

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. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  2. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  3. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  4. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

  5. "...not those committed in the heat of an argument." If I ever see a man physically abusing a woman or a child and I'm close enough to intercede I will not ask him why he is abusing her/him. I will give him a split second to cease his attack and put his hands in the air while I call the police. If he continues, I will still call the police but to report, "Man down with a gunshot wound,"instead.

ADVERTISEMENT