ILNews

COA reverses award of attorney fees to couple

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals found a trial court erred in awarding attorney fees to a couple that sued their insurer following a car accident. The trial court ruled that GEICO litigated the claim in bad faith.

Cheryl and Jim O’Mailia brought an underinsured motorist claim under their policy with GEICO after Cheryl O’Mailia was injured while riding as a passenger in someone else’s car. A week before trial, GEICO’s attorneys discovered on Florida Department of Public Health’s public website that Jim O’Mailia’s medical license was under investigation based on allegations he forged prescriptions for his wife, referred to as the Florida Information in the court record. He pleaded nolo contendere to violating five counts of Florida law by uttering a forged instrument and entered into a settlement.

GEICO did not alert the O’Mailias of the Florida Information it had found, and apparently the O’Mailias did not tell their counsel about the same. On cross-examination of Jim O’Mailia, the GEICO attorney brought up the Florida Information, leading to an objection by the O’Mailias. The GEICO attorney told the court their attorney did not disclose the information because he did not believe there was any obligation to based on trial rules.

Cheryl O’Mailia received a $125,000 judgment. The trial court denied the O’Mailias’ request for a new trial but awarded attorney fees under Ind. Code 34-52-1-1(b)(3), finding that GEICO litigated the action in bad faith with regard to its decision to not disclose the Florida Information. The court concluded that this failure to disclose ran afoul of Ind. Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(d).

In Geico General Insurance Company v. Laura B. Coyne, Cheryl A. O'Mailia, and James O'Mailia, 20A04-1307-CT-325, GEICO argued that it did not litigate in bad faith, and it points to the fact that it researched whether it had a duty to disclose and decided that there was none. The O’Mailias claimed that GEICO’s focus on the Indiana Trial Rules and Rules of Evidence is misplaced because the court found that GEICO’s counsel’s “actions were a breach of professionalism and courtesy and were prejudicial to the administration of justice.”

Based on the statements by GEICO’s counsel, the appellate court concluded that the decision not to disclose the Florida Information was not borne out of ill will, and was not dishonest or immoral, but instead was strategic in nature and believed to be within the bounds of the law.

“Indeed, the O’Mailias, as well as the court, agreed with the results of GEICO’s research that neither the Trial Rules nor the Rules of Evidence compelled GEICO to disclose the information, nor has case law been uncovered imposing such a duty. We cannot say that such circumstances are indicative of litigating in bad faith,” Judge Elaine Brown wrote.

Judge Michael Barnes concurred, writing, “I do so with some hesitation, though, because I believe that trial by ambush and rabbit-out-of-the-hat moments are not to be favored in our courtrooms.”

 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT