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

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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT