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

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT