ILNews

Court to take landlord-tenant insurance query

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has accepted a certified question from a federal judge, and will now consider a state law issue that it hasn't before: whether a tenant is considered a co-insured under a landlord's fire insurance policy if there's no express agreement saying otherwise.

An order dated Monday was posted online today in Auto-Owners Insurance Company a/s/o David M. Brown v. Carolyn Young, d/b/a Peddlers Corner Cafe, No. 94S00-0909-CQ-417. The case comes from the Southern District of Indiana's New Albany division, where U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker asked the state justices to weigh in on the issue according to Indiana Appellate Rule 64.

Filed in September 2008, the case involves an Orange County woman who leased property for a cafe from plaintiff David M. Brown, who was insured by the Michigan-based company Auto-Owners. The two are siblings and didn't have a formal written lease agreement, though they discussed generally the terms of the agreement. She said Brown told her he had building insurance and that she'd only need coverage for her personal property and assets, and that's what she obtained, according to the complaint.

A September 2006 fire damaged the property and Brown received nearly $84,000 from his insurance carrier, but just before the two-year-statute of limitations ran out Auto-Owners filed a complaint that alleged the fire and damage was a result of Young's negligence and that it should be able to recover the payments to Brown.

In a motion to dismiss, Young contended that Auto-Owners has no subrogation rights against her because her interests were insured under Brown's insurance policy. Judge Barker analyzed the issue and relied on Sutton v. Jondahl, 532 P. 2d 478 (C.App.Okla. 1975), which said that a tenant should be deemed a co-insured under a landlord's fire policy if there isn't a written agreement. But since that precedent isn't controlling here and this is an issue of first impression for Indiana law, Judge Barker asked the Indiana Supreme Court to consider the question.

With that, Young's federal motion to dismiss has been administratively closed pending a resolution by the Indiana Supreme Court. The state court wants simultaneous briefing in the case, and the main and response briefs are all due by Dec. 2. Any oral arguments will be scheduled at a later time, the court's order says.

ADVERTISEMENT

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