ILNews

Indiana justices answer certified question from federal court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court says that a person or business that buys and later sells a wrecked vehicle must apply for a salvage title as required by state law, even if that vehicle’s been sold by the time that certificate is received.

Taking up the case of Larry D. Storie v. Randy’s Auto Sales LLC v. St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company, No. 94S00-0912-CQ-559, justices turned to an issue that came up through a certified question by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that handled a civil action out of Indianapolis in Storie v. Randy’s Auto Sales, LLC, 589 F.3d 873, 881 (7th Cir. 2009).

Storie bought a truck that had been involved in a fatal accident in 2003. The truck’s insurer, St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co., applied for a title as proof of ownership but didn't apply for a salvage title. The truck was sold several times - including by Randy's in Indiana - before St. Paul finally received the title. When Storie learned the truck was involved in the fatal accident and felt he’d been misled about the history, he sued Randy's in federal court in the Southern District of Indiana for failing to apply for a salvage title as required by Indiana Code §9-22-3-11(e).

In February 2009, U.S. District Court Judge William T. Lawrence from Indianapolis granted summary judgment in favor of Randy’s Auto Sales, but the 7th Circuit found the case hinged on the interpretation of how state law applies to Storie’s claim on the salvage title.

In analyzing the case, Indiana’s justices noted the specific focus of the certified question is whether ongoing ownership is required by the statute; they didn’t determine whether the phrase “any other person” in the law applies to auto dealers or whether dealers can rely on insurance companies as gatekeepers – both issues the federal appeals court already ruled on and rejected. Justices analyzed the law’s language to determine that the question’s answer is affirmative.

“While acknowledging that Indiana Code §9-22-3-11 is not free from ambiguity, we find persuasive the legislature’s use of ‘acquiring’ rather than ‘owning,’ the 31 day grace period within which to apply for a certificate of salvage title after receiving the original certificate of title, and the harmful consequences that could result if ‘acquiring’ were construed to mean ‘owning’,” Justice Brent Dickson wrote for the unanimous court. “That is, an entity that purchases and later sells a wrecked vehicle is required to apply for a salvage title under Indiana Code §9-22-3-11(e), even if it no longer continues to own the vehicle when it receives the certificate of title. The relinquishment of ownership of the salvage vehicle does not extinguish the obligation to apply for a salvage title.”

 

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT