ILNews

Judge argues ruling puts form over substance

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The chief judge of the Indiana Court of Appeals dissented from his colleagues in an insurance dispute because he believes the decision leads to "an inequitable result."

Chief Judge John Baker wrote in his dissent that Judges Melissa May and Michael Barnes elevated form over substance when concluding that American Family Insurance wasn't entitled to a setoff to reduce jury verdicts by the amounts the insurer had previously paid as medical expense coverage for injuries Tamatha and Hannah Nealy suffered in a car accident. The Nealys won a default judgment of liability against the driver and the owner of the car that hit them; neither person had insurance, so American Family provided coverage under the Nealys' uninsured motorist and medical expense coverage.

The Nealys then sued American Family for the uninsured motorist coverage. The trial court granted American Family's motion for a setoff based on the amount of medical expenses it paid before trial.

In Tamatha M. Nealy, et al. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., No. 49A02-0812-CV-1096, the majority reversed the grant of the motion for setoff and remanded for the entry of judgment in the amount of the verdicts the jury originally returned. Judges May and Barnes ruled the trial court erred by basing the grant of the setoff on the advance payment statute, Indiana Code Section 34-44-2-3, because the payments the insurer made couldn't be characterized as "advance payments." American Family isn't the defendant's insurance company, as required by statute, and the statute doesn't apply when there is more than one defendant, wrote Judge May. There are three defendants in this action - the driver of the car that hit the Nealys, that car's owner, and American Family.

In addition, there's no language in the Nealys' policy to include setoffs for amounts paid under medical expense coverage to reduce the amount paid under the uninsured motorist coverage. The prior payments made by American Family were made under the medical expense provisions, not the uninsured motorist coverage, which does provide for a deduction of payments from the limits of liability. The majority also ruled the original jury verdict wouldn't give the Nealys a double recovery.

Chief Judge Baker believed the advance payment statute applies to this case. He also wrote that because there were multiple defendants and American Family was the plaintiffs' insurer, this decision "elevates form over substance to a degree that leads to an inequitable result." There were multiple defendants, but only American Family played any role in the litigation whatsoever, he wrote. Although American Family was the Nealys' insurer, it was litigating against them.

"I cannot believe that the legislature intended these facts to stand in the way of the application of the advance payment statute," he wrote. "Here, American Family has already paid over $10,000 for the Nealys' medical expenses; it is inequitable and unjust - and antithetical to the purpose of the advance payment statute - to ask the insurer to pay that amount a second time."

Chief Judge Baker also wrote the majority faulted American Family because it didn't say the "magic words" of "uninsured motorist coverage" when it paid the Nealys' medical expenses.

The chief judge did concur with the majority's resolution of the Nealys' additur argument, in which the majority affirmed the denial of their motion for additur.

ADVERTISEMENT

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