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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT