ILNews

Opinion rules on 2 issues of first impression

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


The Indiana Court of Appeals was faced with two issues of first impression in one opinion – the meaning of Indiana Code Section 27-9-3-34(d) and whether a party is entitled to a jury trial for disputes concerning claims in liquidation proceedings.

In Carol Cutter, as the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Insurance v. Classic Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. J.W., et al., No. 49A05-0906-CV-315, Indiana company Classic Fire & Marine Insurance issued a general liability policy to Alaska corporation Allvest in 1995 for one year. During its policy coverage, Allvest let CFM know that women were going to file claims of sexual molestation against an Allvest employee. In 1998, the Indiana Department of Insurance’s petition for liquidation against CFM was granted.

Allvest’s claim for indemnification from CFM under the policy was identified as disputed claim 83, which the Allvest bankruptcy estate sold to the women’s attorney. Allvest was placed in involuntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy in Alaska several years after the women filed their claim. The women, known as the J.W. claimants, got final judgments against Allvest totaling more than $1.22 million before Allvest went into bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court awarded them more than $430,000.

The J.W. claimants wanted a jury trial on the disputed claim and argued they were entitled to full faith and credit in the Indiana insolvency proceedings based on the Alaska judgments. In 2006, the Alaska bankruptcy court approved more than $555,000 from Allvest’s bankruptcy estate for the J.W. claimants, which the Department of Insurance as liquidator objected to based on double recovery. The trial court agreed with the liquidator and dismissed disputed claim 83.

The appellate court ruled that the J.W. claimants’ claim against Allvest and Allvest’s claim against CFM are two separate, distinct claims, so a distribution on the disputed claim 83 won’t result in a double recovery. The trial court erred in its decision.

With respect to judgments or orders entered against an insured, such as Allvest in CFM’s liquidation proceedings, Indiana Code Section 27-9-3-34(d) says “The following do not need to be considered as evidence of liability or the measure of damages: A judgment or order against an insured or the insurer entered after the date of filing a successful petition for liquidation.”

The liquidator argued the J.W. claimants have to prove their claim against Allvest from scratch; the J.W. claimants argued the Alaska judgments are entitled to full faith and credit. Since it’s first impression for Indiana courts, the judges looked to Montana and Pennsylvania cases, which held a judgment or order against an insured filed after a successful petition for liquidation against the insurer isn’t conclusive of liability or the quantum of damages. In CFM’s liquidation proceedings, the Alaska judgments aren’t conclusive evidence of liability or the measure of damages, the COA judges concluded.

The judges noted that the statute doesn’t prohibit a judgment or order against an insured or an insurer entered after the date of filing a successful petition for liquidation from being considered as evidence of liability or the measure of damages.

“The particular facts of each case, the legal issues involved, and the Indiana Rules of Evidence should be used to determine whether such a judgment or order may be considered as evidence of liability or the measure of damages,” wrote Judge Terry Crone.

In the other matter of first impression, the appellate judges ruled that a party isn’t entitled to a jury trial for disputes concerning claims in liquidation proceedings. I.C. Section 27-9-3-37(b) prescribes a hearing before a judge, not a jury.

The case was remanded for further proceedings.
 

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