ILNews

Judges affirm attorney fees from State Farm’s ‘groundless’ lawsuit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A car dealership accused of playing a role in a car fire that destroyed four cars and part of a man’s home is entitled to the more than $12,000 in attorney fees awarded to it after State Farm’s negligence lawsuit was dismissed. The Indiana Court of Appeals noted the insurer’s refusal to dismiss the claim despite knowing the dealership was not at fault for the fire.

Kenneth Burkhart, insured through State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., filed a claim with State Farm after his 2006 GMC truck caught fire while parked in his garage. The fire engulfed the garage, the truck and three other cars, and a portion of his house. Burkhart said the last people to enter the engine compartment were employees of H.H. Niswander. The dealership had performed an oil change on his truck about a week before the fire.

State Farm instituted an investigation and Timothy Herndon and Walter Herndon, of Herndon & Associates, determined the fire was a result of oil leaking from the engine and into the ignition. It was classified as an accidental fire. The report was concluded ten months before State Farm filed its complaint.

During a deposition of State Farm’s experts, Timothy Herndon explained that he believed the oil change had nothing to do with the fire and it was due to a manufacturing defect. State Farm refused to dismiss the case. The dealership filed a motion to dismiss and sought sanctions and fees. The trial court dismissed it with prejudice and ordered State Farm to pay $12,503.39 in attorney fees incurred by H.H. Niswander, noting that State Farm knew prior to filing the suit that the dealership did not cause the fire.

In State Farm Fire & Casualty Company a/s/o Kenneth Burkhart v. H.H. Niswander, 35A02-1307-CT-638, State Farm appealed the order to pay attorney fees. But the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding State Farm’s lawsuit was groundless.

“Based on our standard of review, we cannot find with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake in determining that State Farm pursued the lawsuit against H.H. Niswander without evidence that H.H. Niswander was negligent or caused the fire,” Chief Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote.
 

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