The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer Thursday to case involving part of the worker's compensation statute that
the Indiana Court of Appeals called "somewhat obscure."
In Everett Cash Mutual Insurance Co. v. Rick and Katrina Taylor, No. 02A03-0808-CV-386, the Court of Appeals had
to decide whether the Taylors were negligent in failing to make sure an independent contractor had workers' compensation
insurance because they believed their farm personal liability policy from Everett would cover all risks occurring on their
property.
The majority ruled based on Indiana Code Section 22-3-2-14 that the Taylors were potentially liable for payment of workers'
compensation benefits to the injured man just as if they directly employed him.
The majority also found Everett wasn't estopped from denying coverage for the independent contractor's claim because
there wasn't any designated evidence to show the Taylors thought they were receiving coverage for the precise situation
that happened in this case. In the absence of evidence they were led to believe at the time they originally bought the policy
that it would provide coverage for this specific situation, there can't be estoppel.
Judge L. Mark Bailey dissented because he believed there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding the estoppel claim.














vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!
Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.
With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.
Jack, I was only responding to bill's comment of tying everybody in government together. I agree with you though, it takes one bad apple to ruin the bunch.. As in any profession. What's truly unfair is when somebody violates someone's trust and takes complete advantage of someone
John’s comment is unfair. The majority of attorneys can be trusted. Unfortunately, all it takes is one greedy, unscrupulous, immoral attorney to jade the public.