ILNews

Judges disagree on estoppel claim

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indiana Court of Appeals panel disagreed today as to whether an insurance company is entitled to summary judgment in an action filed by clients regarding coverage.

In Everett Cash Mutual Insurance Co. v. Rick and Katrina Taylor, No. 02A03-0808-CV-386, the issue is whether the Taylors were negligent in failing to make sure an independent contractor had worker's compensation insurance because the Taylors believed their farm personal liability policy from Everett would cover all risks occurring on their property.

The Taylors told their insurance agent Jake Owens they wanted "all risk" coverage, but the policy contained exclusions that included no coverage if an injury would be covered by a worker's compensation claim.

Shortly after obtaining the policy, a worker for Sherlock, an independent contractor hired by the Taylors, was injured while painting the grain bin. The Taylors didn't verify if the company had worker's compensation insurance before hiring them and assumed any risk was covered by their policy. When the employee Christopher Collis filed a complaint against the company, he added the Taylors as a party for failing to verify whether Sherlock had worker's compensation coverage. After the injury, Owens told the Taylors their policy would cover Collis' injuries, but Everett denied coverage.

The Taylors filed suit against Everett, Owens and two other insurance agencies seeking recovery against Everett for breach of contract and estoppel. The trial court denied Everett's summary judgment motion.

The judges examined a "somewhat obscure" worker's compensation provision, Indiana Code Section 22-3-2-14, which says a third party that contracts with an injured worker's employer is subject to liability for worker's compensation benefits to the same extent as the employer if the third party didn't comply with the Worker's Compensation Act. This statute is applicable in the instant case, so the Taylors are potentially liable for payment of worker's compensation benefits to Collis just as if they directly employed him, wrote Judge Michael Barnes for the majority. The Taylors should have ensured Sherlock had the coverage because their policy from Everett doesn't provide coverage for a claim made under the statute.

The majority also found Everett wasn't estopped from denying coverage for Collis' claim because there wasn't any designated evidence to show the Taylors thought they were receiving coverage for the precise situation that happened in this case, and in the absence of evidence they were led to believe at the time they originally bought the policy that it would provide coverage for this specific situation, there can't be estoppel, wrote Judge Barnes. The majority reversed the denial of Everett's motion for summary judgment.

Judge L. Mark Bailey dissented believing there was genuine issue of material fact regarding the estoppel claim. There is a question of fact whether the policy was represented to be the "all risk" coverage that included the Taylors' negligent omission for which they believed they are insured, the judge wrote. Judge Bailey believed the Taylors are entitled to their day in court and would affirm the denial of Everett's motion for summary judgment.

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. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT