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to Vara and Farley saying if Farley was found to be driving the Cutlass, defense and indemnification would be withdrawn for him.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. Can I get this form on line,if not where can I obtain one. I am eligible.

  2. What a fine example of the best of the Hoosier tradition! How sad that the AP has to include partisan snark in the obit for this great American patriot and adventurer.

  3. Why are all these lawyers yakking to the media about pending matters? Trial by media? What the devil happened to not making extrajudicial statements? The system is falling apart.

  4. It is a sad story indeed as this couple has been only in survival mode, NOT found guilty with Ponzi, shaken down for 5 years and pursued by prosecution that has been ignited by a civil suit with very deep pockets wrenched in their bitterness...It has been said that many of us are breaking an average of 300 federal laws a day without even knowing it. Structuring laws, & civilForfeiture laws are among the scariest that need to be restructured or repealed . These laws were initially created for drug Lords and laundering money and now reach over that line. Here you have a couple that took out their own money, not drug money, not laundering. Yes...Many upset that they lost money...but how much did they make before it all fell apart? No one ask that question? A civil suit against Williams was awarded because he has no more money to fight...they pushed for a break in order...they took all his belongings...even underwear, shoes and clothes? who does that? What allows that? Maybe if you had the picture of him purchasing a jacket at the Goodwill just to go to court the next day...his enemy may be satisfied? But not likely...bitterness is a master. For happy ending lovers, you will be happy to know they have a faith that has changed their world and a solid love that many of us can only dream about. They will spend their time in federal jail for taking their money from their account, but at the end of the day they have loyal friends, a true love and a hope of a new life in time...and none of that can be bought or taken That is the real story.

  5. Could be his email did something especially heinous, really over the top like questioning Ind S.Ct. officials or accusing JLAP of being the political correctness police.

ADVERTISEMENT