ILNews

High court clarifies evidence designation

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court upheld a trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of a defendant and also clarified the designation of evidence in regards to Indiana Trial Rule 56(C).

In Idan (John) Filip and Valaria Filip v. Carrie Block and 1st Choice Insurance Agency, No. 75S05-0704-CV-149, the Filips filed a suit against Block and 1st Choice, alleging negligence in the selection of insurance on an apartment building they purchased in 1999.

Block was the insurance agent of the previous owner, and when the Filips purchased the building they worked with Block and told her they wanted the same coverage as the previous owner. The Filips lived in the building and rented out the other five units. During the following four years, the Filips made several changes to their policy. In April 2003, a fire substantially damaged the building, and because of insurance limitations, a major part of the loss was uninsured - the Filips discovered their non-business personal belongings were not covered in the fire.

Block and 1st Choice filed for summary judgment Aug. 1, 2005. The Filips had 30 days to respond and did not file their response until the end of September. The trial court struck the Filips' untimely designation of evidence and limited the Filips' evidence in opposition to the lines and paragraphs specified in Block's memorandum. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Block and 1st Choice because the two-year statute of limitations for negligence started on the date of the initial insurance coverage in 1999.

The Court of Appeals held the Filips could rely on the pages identified in the defendant's motion and were not limited to lines and paragraphs specified in the memorandum. Also, the Court of Appeals held the statute of limitations did not bar the Filips' complaint because the statutory period for negligence against an insurance agent starts to run when the claim is denied.

In the Supreme Court decision, Justice Theodore Boehm held the designation of evidence in support or opposition to a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 56(C) may be accomplished in several places, but must be done so consistently. The entire designation of evidence must be in a single place, whether as a separate document or appendix, or as a part of a motion or other filing. And, a party may rely on designations by an opposing party, even if inconsistently designated in different places. Block tried to allow only specific lines and paragraphs to be used by the Filips; however, the Filips can rely on the entire designated pages identified in the defendants' motion in opposing summary judgment, Justice Boehm wrote.

In regards to when the accrual date for a negligence action against an insurance agent begins, the Supreme Court agreed with the trial court. The trial court determined the statute of limitations began to run at the time of coverage. The Filips argued their negligence claim began when the fire occurred. Justice Boehm wrote in this case, all of the alleged problems the Filips claim their policy lacked could have been ascertained by reading the policy at any point before the fire. With the exception of their nonbusiness personal property, the limitations in this case began with the activation of the policy.

The Filips and Block both erroneously believed the Filips policy covered the Filips' nonbusiness personal property, and the Filips claim they relied on Block's statements they were covered.

"In sum, for the purposes of the summary judgment, there is evidence that Block breached the duty of care because she incorrectly believed nonbusiness personal property was covered. There are no damages from this breach, however," wrote Justice Boehm.
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

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. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  2. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  3. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  4. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  5. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

ADVERTISEMENT