ILNews

Court rules against Bobby Knight's appeal

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Court of Appeals ruled today in favor of the insurance company in a case involving former Indiana University men's basketball head coach Bobby Knight in Robert M. Knight v. Indiana Insurance Company and Indiana University http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/08080701lmb.pdf. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Indiana Insurance Co. on Knight's breach of contract, bad faith, negligence, and punitive damage claims. Knight appealed, arguing the court erred in granting summary judgment on Knight's claims the company wrongfully denied his homeowners policy coverage and breached its duty to investigate and defend a lawsuit that arose in Knight's workplace.

In December 1999, while Knight was employed at Indiana University, he overheard assistant basketball coach Ronald Felling on the phone criticizing Knight's coaching abilities and referring to Knight in a derogatory manner. Knight advised Felling to find another job and later verbally confronted Felling in an office at Assembly Hall at IU with other assistant coaches present. Knight made physical contact with Felling as he tried to leave, contact Knight and his assistant coach and son Pat Knight described as a "bump." As a result of the contact, Felling was pushed backwards into a television set and later filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana in April 2001. The lawsuit presented a wrongful termination claim against IU and alleged Knight's physical conduct against Felling violated 42 U.S.C. 1983.

In October 2001, Knight informed his insurer, Indiana Insurance Co. - with which he had a homeowner's policy - about the Felling lawsuit. In late October, the insurance company issued a reservation of rights letter to Knight that outlined liability coverages and exclusions.

In July 2002, the insurer took a recorded statement from Knight during which he said he "bumped into Felling," they "collided as (Knight) jumped up," and "(Felling) couldn't have been hurt." In August of that year, the insurance company sent a letter to Knight denying his coverage for the Felling lawsuit citing the "business exclusion" in his policy. On Aug. 30, 2002, Knight settled the lawsuit by paying $25,000 to Felling and admitting he shoved Felling in anger.

In 2004, Knight filed a complaint seeking indemnification from the insurer and IU. The insurer moved for summary judgment and Knight filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on the insurer's duty to defend. The trial court granted summary judgment for the insurance company.

Knight appealed, claiming the summary judgment was improper because Felling had no bodily injury and the trial court erroneously applied an insurance coverage exclusion involving bodily injury; that there is a genuine issue of material fact whether Knight acted with the intent to cause injury; and that the trial court erroneously concluded as a matter of law the insurance company had not breached its duty to defend.

The Court of Appeals ruled Felling did not sustain bodily harm, sickness, or diseases as a result of the event, which is how bodily injury is defined in Knight's policy. Because there was no bodily injury, there was no event to warrant coverage under the policy.

Also, the incident occurred at Knight's profession or place of business. His homeowner's policy excludes injury or damage "arising out of or in connection with a business engaged in by an insured."

Knight also claimed Indiana Insurance Co. breached its duty to reasonably investigate and defend the lawsuit and is entitled to reimbursement for his costs of legal representation. The Court of Appeals ruled it was a workplace incident that resulted in no bodily injury and a reasonable claims manager would be able to "discern the lack of contractual obligation at that juncture."
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. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  2. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  3. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  4. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  5. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

ADVERTISEMENT