ILNews

Man wins partial victory in appeal of insurance dispute

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The lawsuit filed by man who was hit by a car while crossing the street will continue with respect to the driver of the car, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled. The judges affirmed summary judgment in favor of the driver’s insurer.

Kristen Dawn struck Michael Weist with her car, injuring him. Her insurance provider was State Farm Insurance Cos. Several days after the Sept. 2, 2010, accident, State Farm claim representative Barb Easley called Weist and admitted Dawn’s liability and that he was entitled to damages in the form of lost wages, pain and suffering, and payment for medical bills.

For the next two years, Weist underwent treatment for his injuries and spoke with Easley on the matter. She contacted his doctors for medical records. In August, 2012, his case was transferred to Ashanda Dunigan. When Weist called Easley in November 2012, he was transferred to Dunigan, who told him she could not assist him because the two-year statute of limitations had run.

Weist sued, and the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Dawn and State Farm, ruling “There exists no genuine issue of material fact as to whether (Dawn and State Farm) are equitably estopped from asserting the Statute of Limitations as affirmative defenses.”

The Court of Appeals reversed with respect to Dawn, citing a two-part test outlined in Davis v. Shelter Insurance Cos., 957 N.E.2d 995 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), to determine the availability of equitable estoppel.

“Weist’s allegations, if proven, would fall within the parameters of Davis’s requirement of a promise to settle under the first part of the test, thereby establishing a dispute of material fact,” Senior Judge John Sharpnack wrote in Michael Weist v. Kristen Dawn and State Farm Insurance Companies, 49A02-1306-PL-541.

There are also genuine issues of material fact as to whether State Farm’s conduct on behalf of Dawn induced Weist to delay action.

The judges affirmed summary judgment for State Farm based on the direct action rule, which bars a third party from pursuing a claim based on the actions of an insured directly against an insurer.

 

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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT