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to Vara and Farley saying if Farley was found to be driving the Cutlass, defense and indemnification would be withdrawn for him.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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.