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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  2. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  3. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  4. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  5. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.