Indiana Insurance Company v. Patricia Kopetsky - 5/5/14

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Monday  May 5, 2014 
1:30 PM  EST

1:30 p.m. 49A02-1304-PL-340. Indiana Insurance contends that the trial court erred in granting Patricia summary judgment because (1) no damages were alleged by KB Home that qualify as “property damage” under the Policies; (2) KB Home alleged economic loss only, which does not qualify as “bodily injury” or “property damage” under the Policies; (3) the damages alleged were not the result of an “occurrence” under the Policies; (4) the Policies’ “expected and intended” exclusion barred coverage; (5) the trial court erred in failing to differentiate between Indiana Insurance’s breach of contract and constructive fraud claims; and (6) the trial court erred in concluding that Indiana insurance would have to indemnify Patricia for any judgment rendered in KB Home’s favor.  Patricia cross-appeals, claiming that the trial court erred in dismissing her bad faith claim against Indiana Insurance.
 

Back to Events
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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT