Indiana Restorative Dentistry v. The Laven Insurance Agency, et al. - 11/6/13

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Wednesday  November 6, 2013 
10:00 AM  EST

10 a.m. 49A05-1212-PL-627. Indiana Supreme Court courtroom. Appellant-Plaintiff, Indiana Restorative Dentistry, P.C., appeals the trial court’s denial of its motion to correct error following the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Appellee-Defendant, ProAssurance Indemnity Co., Inc. f/k/a The Medical Assurance Co., Inc.

On October 25, 2009, a fire destroyed the Carmel offices of Indiana Restorative Dentistry, Inc.  The office contents were covered under an insurance policy issued by ProAssurance, and obtained through Appellee-Defendant, The Laven Insurance Agency, Inc.  The Indiana Restorative Dentistry, P.C.. brought this claim to recover uninsured losses resulting from the fire.  Granting summary judgment for ProAssurance, the trial court found that (1) Laven was not under a special duty to advise Indiana Restorative Dentistry about its insurance coverage despite their long-term relationship; (2) there is no factual basis that would support a finding that Laven was under a contractual duty to provide insurance fully covering Indiana Restorative Dentistry’s loss; and (3) ProAssurance cannot he held vicariously liable for Laven’s actions.

Back to Events
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Contact Lea Shelemey attorney in porter county Indiana. She just helped us win our case...she is awesome...

  2. We won!!!! It was a long expensive battle but we did it. I just wanted people to know it is possible. And if someone can point me I. The right direction to help change the way the courts look as grandparents as only grandparents. The courts assume the parent does what is in the best interest of the child...and the court is wrong. A lot of the time it is spite and vindictiveness that separates grandparents and grandchildren. It should not have been this long and hard and expensive...Something needs to change...

  3. Typo on # of Indiana counties

  4. The Supreme Court is very proud that they are Giving a billion dollar public company from Texas who owns Odyssey a statewide monopoly which consultants have said is not unnecessary but worse they have already cost Hoosiers well over $100 MILLION, costing tens of millions every year and Odyssey is still not connected statewide which is in violation of state law. The Supreme Court is using taxpayer money and Odyssey to compete against a Hoosier company who has the only system in Indiana that is connected statewide and still has 40 of the 82 counties despite the massive spending and unnecessary attacks

  5. Here's a recent resource regarding steps that should be taken for removal from the IN sex offender registry. I haven't found anything as comprehensive as of yet. Hopefully this is helpful - http://www.chjrlaw.com/removal-indiana-sex-offender-registry/

ADVERTISEMENT