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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT