ILNews

High court to hear insurance, dissolution cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court will hear arguments in three cases tomorrow, including two cases involving insurance coverage disputes.

At 9 a.m., the high court will hear arguments in Tri-Etch, Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 49A02-0709-CV-827. At issue in this case were two orders from the trial court. One order granted partial summary judgment in favor of Tri-Etch and the appellants on a bad faith counterclaim brought by Cincinnati Insurance, and the other granted summary judgment in favor of Cincinnati and ruled that Tri-Etch's late notice to Cincinnati was unreasonably late as a matter of law and Cincinnati owed no coverage or indemnity to Tri-Etch.

The Court of Appeals reversed the grant of summary judgment because Cincinnati couldn't show it was prejudiced by late notice from Tri-Etch as a matter of law. The case was remanded for the trial court to determine when Cincinnati received notice of the claim to determine the reasonable amount of defense costs the company should pay.

The other insurance case, Allianz Insurance Co. v. Guidant Corp., No. 49A05-0704-CV-216, was described by the Court of Appeals as a "monstrosity of a litigation" based on the fact Illinois and Indiana courts were involved in similar disputes. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision in a case involving public-access laws, fraud, and an insurer's duty to defend. The appellate court reversed the trial court's entry of partial summary judgment in favor of the policyholders. The Court of Appeals ruled the policy's "batch clause" wasn't triggered so the policy's self-insured retention wasn't exhausted.

The Court of Appeals also found the trial court erred in allowing a protective order to seal the case because there wasn't any confidential information in the records, briefs, or issues.

Allianz had filed suit against Guidant in Illinois seeking damages and recission of the insurance policy for fraud; that same month Guidant filed suit in Indiana against Allianz alleging the insurers breached their duty to defend and Guidant was entitled to coverage for the losses from a defect in a medical device.

Arguments begin at 9:45 a.m.

The Supreme Court also will hear arguments in a marriage dissolution case. Here, the trial court judge entered a money judgment in favor of ex-husband Robert Rovai but made Ann Marie Rovai's payment of that money due upon the occurrence of several future events - when both the children become emancipated, Ann Marie voluntarily sells the marital home awarded to her, or she marries or lives with someone else in the home. The appellate court upheld the trial court decision. Arguments in Robert Rovai v. Ann Marie Rovai, No. 45A03-0712-CV-600, begin at 10:30 a.m.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT