ILNews

Insurance credit in criminal restitution case affirmed

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A woman who pleaded guilty to drunken driving and was ordered to pay restitution to a victim hurt as a result of a crash was entitled to use insurance proceeds to pay the court-ordered damages, the Court of Appeals ruled Friday.

The court affirmed an Allen County judgment in Randolph Kelley v. State of Indiana and Paige A. Devlin, 02A03-1308-CR-329. Paige Devlin pleaded guilty to Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated causing serious bodily injury and misdemeanor illegal consumption of alcohol. She was ordered to pay $59,974 in restitution due to serious injuries Randolph Kelley suffered after his car and Devlin’s collided.

In a related civil suit, Kelley agreed to settle with Devlin for her $50,000 insurance policy limit. Over Kelley’s objections, the civil court ruled that Kelley had signed an unambiguous release and Devlin was entitled to a $50,000 credit based on the insurance payment, leaving an outstanding restitution amount of $9.974.87.

“(W) e conclude that the criminal court did not commit reversible error when it granted Devlin a credit toward the restitution order based on her insurer’s payment of damages pursuant to a civil settlement," Judge Ezra Friedlander wrote for the court.
 

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. Is it possible to amend an order for child support due to false paternity?

  2. He did not have an "unlicensed handgun" in his pocket. Firearms are not licensed in Indiana. He apparently possessed a handgun without a license to carry, but it's not the handgun that is licensed (or registered).

  3. Once again, Indiana's legislature proves how friendly it is to monopolies. This latest bill by Hershman demonstrates the lengths Indiana's representatives are willing to go to put big business's (especially utilities') interests above those of everyday working people. Maassal argues that if the technology (solar) is so good, it will be able to compete on its own. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about the industries he represents. Instead, he wants to cut the small credit consumers get for using solar in order to "add a 'level of certainty'" to his industry. I haven't heard of or seen such a blatant money-grab by an industry since the days when our federal, state, and local governments were run by the railroad. Senator Hershman's constituents should remember this bill the next time he runs for office, and they should penalize him accordingly.

  4. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  5. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

ADVERTISEMENT