ILNews

Judges tell trial court to declare commissioner’s order void

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s denial of a title insurance company’s verified petition for judicial review and declaratory relief, finding the court erred by requiring a separate showing of prejudice because the Indiana insurance commissioner failed to comply with a mandatory statutory deadline regarding an order setting an investigatory hearing.

In First American Title Insurance Company v. Stephen W. Robertson, Insurance Commissioner of the State of Indiana, on Behalf of the Indiana Dept. of Insurance,
49A04-1206-PL-326, Stephen W. Robertson, as Indiana insurance commissioner, had a third-party perform a market conduct examination of First American Title Insurance Company. The commissioner and First American were unable to reach a resolution on the issues regarding the report and the commissioner requested two extensions of the statutory 30-day deadline. The insurance company denied the commissioner’s third request for an extension, leading Robertson to issue an order appointing an administrative law judge and set an investigatory hearing on the report.

First American sought judicial review and declaratory relief in Marion Superior Court, saying the commissioner’s failure to act on the report within the statutory timeframe rendered the order void. The trial court denied the commissioner’s motion to dismiss, finding that First American properly filed an agency record, but held under the Administrative Orders and Procedures Act that the court must find that an agency action both fits into one of five categories and that the agency action prejudiced the petitioner in order to set aside the action. Those categories include an action that is in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority or limitations, or short of statutory right.

The court found First American didn’t meet its burden of proof regarding prejudice.

The Court of Appeals held that Robertson waived his argument that First American failed to exhaust administrative remedies because he raised this issue for the first time on appeal. The judges affirmed the denial of his motion to dismiss on the grounds First American failed to submit an agency record.

“Because the issue was a question of law regarding compliance with a statutory deadline, and there were no disputed facts, the submitted materials were sufficient to allow judicial review of the issue,” Chief Judge Margret Robb wrote. “Moreover, most of the materials typically included in an agency record do not exist in this case because no evidentiary hearing was conducted.”

The judges also held that the commissioner does not have flexibility under statute as to when to respond to the third-party report and that the “shall” in I.C. 27-1-3.1-11 is mandatory. When the mandatory statutory deadline passed, the commissioner no longer had the authority to issue an order with regard to the report, rendering his order void, Robb wrote.

“… by failing to comply with a mandatory statutory deadline, the Commissioner acted without observance of procedure required by law and in excess of its statutory authority,” she continued. “No Indiana caselaw requires proving anything beyond establishing that the agency action at issue falls into one of the five enumerated categories set forth in Indiana Code section 4-21.5-5-14(d) in order to obtain relief. Thus, we find that First American satisfied its burden of proof and was entitled to relief.”
 

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