ILNews

High court takes workers' compensation case

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. A sad end to a prolific gadfly. Indiana has suffered a great loss in the journalistic realm.

  2. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  3. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  4. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  5. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

ADVERTISEMENT