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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT