ILNews

Court relies on equitable estoppel determination test

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Examining both state and national caselaw in an appeal involving an Allen County car crash, the Indiana Court of Appeals has used a two-part test in determining whether equitable estoppel is available to those filing a claim.

The Indiana Court of Appeals issued a decision today in Janice L. Davis v. Shelter Insurance Companies, State Farm Insurance Companies, and Jennifer Culver, No. 02A05-1105-CT-256.

Stemming from a case before Allen Superior Judge David Avery, the appeal involves a January 2008 car crash between Janice Davis and Jennifer Culver in which Davis was injured. Shelter insured Davis while State Farm insured Culver, and Davis received treatment paid for by her insurance company. A State Farm representative phoned Davis after the accident and told her that she wasn’t able to call State Farm about the accident until she completed treatment and was ready to settle the claim.

The insurance companies communicated and early the following year, Davis told another State Farm representative she’d provide full medical documentation of her treatment when she was ready to settle. The statute of limitation on Davis’ claim ran out on Jan. 3, 2010, and Davis was still receiving treatment at the time.

She asked State Farm to settle her claim of nearly $4,339 in March 2010, but State Farm informed her the statute of limitations had expired. Davis hired an attorney and filed a complaint in June 2010, and after both parties submitted motions for judgment the trial court granted summary judgment for State Farm and Culver.

On appeal, the judges disagreed with Davis’ claim that equitable estoppel barred the statute of limitations defense by State Farm and Culver. Specifically, the panel relied on rulings from the state’s top appellate courts in 1980, 1990 and 2003 that addressed the doctrine of equitable estoppel and, when applied to this instant case against State Farm and Culver, didn’t amount to any fraud or deceit in stopping the statutory timeline of the case.

The appellate court found that according to the documents in this case, when there’s a promise to settle or perform, any reliance on that promise by a claimant must be reasonable before equitable estoppel is available. The claim by Davis isn’t reasonable in rising to the level of stopping the statute of limitations defense, the judges determined.

Looking at rulings from federal appellate courts and state appellate courts in California, Illinois, Pennsylvania and South Carolina along with federal precedent on this issue, the Indiana Court of Appeals compared that caselaw with this state’s decisions and determined that a two-part test exists for determining whether equitable estoppel should apply. First, a court must determine whether the insurer has engaged in a promise to settle, discouraged the person from filing suit, discouraged the person from hiring an attorney, or other egregious conduct. If one of those factors exists, then the court must engage in the second part of the test and look at the totality of the circumstance surrounding the insurer’s actions.

In this claim by Davis, the appellate panel found that State Farm’s conduct wasn’t sufficient to trigger equitable estoppel because the insurer didn’t engage in any of those initial activities.

“State Farm’s only action at issue in this case was to tell Davis to contact them when she was done with her medical treatment,” Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote. “This conduct can hardly be considered egregious and should not have overridden Davis’s common sense that she needed to actively pursue her claim with State Farm.”

The appellate panel affirmed the lower court’s decision.
 

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 appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT