ILNews

Opinions Nov. 18, 2010

November 18, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
David N. Rain and Paramount International Inc. v. Rolls-Royce Corp.
10-1290
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge William T. Lawrence.
Civil. Affirms partial summary judgment in favor of Rolls-Royce on Rain’s claim for breach of contract by breaching a non-disparagement provision in a settlement agreement after Rolls-Royce filed a Texas lawsuit involving Rain and Paramount. The requirements for applying Indiana’s absolute privilege are satisfied - the allegations were made in the course of a judicial proceeding to which they were relevant. Affirms the judgment following a bench trial on breach of contract in favor of Rolls-Royce after Rolls-Royce asked Rain to leave an event. Finds that the meaning of the word “disparage” in the settlement agreement properly is limited to actions dishonoring, discrediting, denigrating or belittling the parties’ economic, business or professional interests.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jamie Wicker v. Rodney McIntosh, et al.
72A05-0912-CV-743
Civil. Affirms summary judgment in favor of intervening plaintiff United Farm Family Mutual Insurance Co. on its complaint for declaratory judgment in Wicker’s negligence suit. The trial court correctly entered summary judgment in favor of the insurer as the unambiguous language of the insurance policy excludes coverage. The exception to the exclusion relied upon by Wicker does not apply as it is uncontroverted that the accident leading to the claim of damages occurred at an uninsured location.

Patrice Cotton v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company
49A02-1005-CT-575
Civil tort. Affirms partial summary judgment for Auto-Owners Insurance Co. on Cotton’s complaint seeking coverage under a garage policy issued by Auto-Owners to Jim Bailey Auto Sales for injuries sustained in a car accident. For an “incidental” act or occurrence to be insured, it must bear a direct relationship to coverage under the garage liability policy, and Cotton has not shown such a relationship here. Cotton has not shown that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied her motion to strike the affidavit of the dealer, Jim Bailey.

Patrick Alvey v. Natalie K. (Alvey) Hite (NFP)
82A05-1002-DR-141
Domestic relation. The dissolution court’s failure to assign any value to Patrick’s inherited property and not including it in the marital estate is a clear error. Remands with instructions for the dissolution court to include Patrick’s inherited property in the marital estate, to value the property, and to issue and new order redistributing the marital assets and liabilities accordingly. Affirms dissolution decree in all other respects.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.



 

ADVERTISEMENT

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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT