ILNews

COA to hear insurance, attorney fee cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A panel of Indiana Court of Appeals judges will hear arguments Tuesday in Evansville in an insurance coverage case while another panel in Indianapolis will hear arguments in a case involving the division of attorney fees.

Judges Elaine Brown, Melissa May, and Patricia Riley travel to the University of Southern Indiana for arguments regarding a dispute over the scope of coverage of comprehensive general liability insurance policies issued to a construction company in Sheehan Construction Co., et al., v. Continental Casualty Co., et al., No. 49A02-0805-CV-420. A class of plaintiffs alleged their homes sustained water damage because of faulty workmanship. Continental Casualty Co. provided insurance for general contractor Sheehan Construction and Indiana Insurance provided coverage for Somerville Construction, a subcontractor.

The insurers were awarded summary judgment on the grounds that damage naturally resulting from defective workmanship isn't an "accident" covered by the policies. The plaintiffs argued the insurance industry broadened the scope of its standard polices in 1986 to cover this type of damage. Arguments begin at 4 p.m. CDT in Carter Hall D, 8600 University Blvd., Evansville.

Judges Michael Barnes, Cale Bradford, and Edward Najam will hear arguments at 1:30 p.m. in the Indiana Supreme Court courtroom in Nunn Law Office v. Peter H. Rosenthal, No. 49A05-0809-CV-523. Nunn Law Office appeals the trial court's award of $1,462.88 in attorney's fees arising out of Nunn's and appellee attorney Peter Rosenthal's representation of a client in a personal injury action. Nunn claims the trial court erred by failing to issue written findings of fact and conclusions pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 52 and in basing its award upon quantum meruit rather than on Nunn's contingency fee agreement with the client.

The argument will be webcast live and can be viewed by visiting http://www.in.gov/judiciary/appeals/ and clicking on the link under "Upcoming live webcasts" on the top right of the page.

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT