insurance

Circuit Court reverses insurance case

December 22, 2010
Jennifer Nelson
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment for an insurer on the issue of whether the commercial general policy covered faulty subcontractor work, citing a similar case recently ruled on by the Indiana Supreme Court. The Circuit Court also dealt with an issue surrounding umbrella policies for the first time.
More

High court denies rehearing

December 20, 2010
Jennifer Nelson
A split Indiana Supreme Court has denied rehearing a case involving faulty workmanship being covered under a commercial general liability policy.
More

Opinion regarding insurance company considers definition of ‘ever’

November 24, 2010
Rebecca Berfanger
An Indiana Court of Appeals panel was split in an opinion released today that considered the definition of “ever” on a home insurance application when it came to whether the homeowners insurance coverage was ever “declined, cancelled, or non-renewed.”
More

Appellate court affirms judgment in coverage dispute

November 22, 2010
Jennifer Nelson
Indiana Evidence Rule 407 may bar evidence of subsequent insurance policy revisions offered to resolve ambiguity in an executed insurance contract, the Indiana Court of Appeals held today.
More

Appellate court finds garage insurance policy doesn’t cover injuries

November 18, 2010
Jennifer Nelson
For only the second time, the Indiana Court of Appeals has addressed the language in a garage insurance policy, and upheld partial summary judgment in favor of the insurer.
More

Court divides over injury claim under insurance policy

October 29, 2010
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Court of Appeals split today on whether a couple’s emotional distress claim constitutes “bodily injury” under their uninsured motorist coverage.
More

COA reverses motion allowing for release of documents

October 26, 2010
Rebecca Berfanger
The Indiana Court of Appeals today reversed an order from Lake Superior Court that granted a motion to compel the production of documents from the appellant-defendant Allstate Insurance Company.
More

High court divided on faulty workmanship coverage under CGL policy

October 1, 2010
Jennifer Nelson
The high court split on whether an “occurrence” under a commercial general liability policy covers an insured contract for faulty workmanship of its subcontractor.
More

Court: team-building activity not under insured conditions

September 28, 2010
Elizabeth Brockett
The Indiana Court of Appeals today affirmed summary judgment in favor of an insurance company, noting a soccer team’s accident while traveling to an activity outside of the trip’s purpose was not covered.
More

Wrongful death statute allows for attorney fees, other costs

September 17, 2010
Elizabeth Brockett
Compensation for attorney fees and other costs can be awarded under the Adult Wrongful Death Statute, ruled a Court of Appeals panel today.
More

COA: Insurance funds aren't a money judgment

November 16, 2009
Jennifer Nelson
In a matter of first impression, the Indiana Court of Appeals decided today that a summary judgment granting insurance policies isn't equivalent to a money judgment that would allow for 8 percent post-judgment interest.
More

Insurance presents first-impression issue

October 30, 2009
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Court of Appeals determined today for the first time that post-retirement health insurance premiums paid by a former employer aren't a marital asset subject to a division.
More

Insurer not allowed to substitute party name

October 29, 2009
Jennifer Nelson
An insurance company isn't allowed to substitute another party's name in a suit filed by a driver for her underinsured motorist benefits because there's no authority for substitution of a non-party before a jury in a contract case, the Indiana Court of Appeals decided today. Doing so would create a "legal fiction" before the jury.
More

COA: Insurers have no duty to defend Cinergy

October 28, 2009
Jennifer NelsonMore

Supreme Court upholds denial of continuance

October 27, 2009
Jennifer Nelson
The majority of justices on the Indiana Supreme Court agreed that the trial court didn't abuse its discretion in denying a married couple's pro se motion to continue after their attorney withdrew six weeks before trial. The dissenting justice argued because of the complexities of the case, the trial court should have granted the couple's motion.
More

Court to take landlord-tenant insurance query

October 9, 2009
Michael Hoskins
The Indiana Supreme Court has accepted a certified question from a federal judge, and will now consider a state law issue that it hasn't before: whether a tenant is considered a co-insured under a landlord's fire insurance policy if there's no express agreement saying otherwise.
More

Court upholds preliminary injunction

September 17, 2009
Jennifer Nelson
Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative has until the end of the year to find a replacement holder for its credit-default swap or an insurance company will be able to collect on the security.
More

Insurer's policy breach a case of first impression

August 11, 2009
Jennifer NelsonMore

Judge argues ruling puts form over substance

August 10, 2009
Jennifer Nelson
The chief judge of the Indiana Court of Appeals dissented from his colleagues in an insurance dispute because he believes the decision leads to "an inequitable result."
More

Insurer must provide underinsured coverage

August 4, 2009
Jennifer Nelson
An insurance policy that doesn't provide uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage to all insureds is contrary to public policy based on Indiana statute, affirmed the Indiana Court of Appeals.
More

Alarm company's actions not covered by policies

July 21, 2009
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the denial of summary judgment on an insurance company's coverage defenses, ruling its insured's actions leading to a lawsuit were "errors or omissions," and so weren't covered by the commercial general liability or umbrella policies.
More

Judges rule on workers' comp billing issues

June 24, 2009
Michael Hoskins
Employers or their insurers - not health care providers - must prove when medical expenses for injured employees might be considered higher than what's allowed under the state's workers' compensation statute, according to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
More

Judges differ on if 'property damage' occurred

June 23, 2009
Jennifer Nelson
A majority of Indiana Court of Appeals judges affirmed summary judgment in favor of a homebuilder's insurance provider, insurance broker, and subcontractor's insurer, ruling the damage to the homes wasn't "property damage" as covered by the insurance policies.
More

COA rules insurer has no duty to defend

May 29, 2009
Jennifer NelsonMore

Justices split on discounted medical expenses

May 28, 2009
Michael Hoskins
In a ruling about whether insurance discounts can be used to determine reasonable medical expenses, two Indiana Supreme Court justices say their colleagues have created a new rule that is "incomplete, misleading, and unfair" and will add "layers of complexity, time, and expense to personal injury litigation, impairing the efficient administration of justice."
More
Page  << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >> pager
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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT