ILNews

7th Circuit rejects lawsuit on insurer’s use of in-house counsel

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Tuesday agreed that a woman’s lawsuit against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. should be dismissed because state law creates no obligation for an insurer to provide advance notice to an insured that it uses in-house counsel to defend its policyholders.

Cindy Golden, who is insured by State Farm, brought her lawsuit after State Farm in-house attorney Patrick J. Murphy represented her in a lawsuit that was a result of an accident she was in. Her policy says that in the event of the accident, State Farm will pay “attorney fees for attorneys chosen by us to defend an insured who is sued” for damages.

Murphy sent Golden a letter telling her that he worked full time for State Farm. The lawsuit went to trial, and State Farm paid the nearly $4,000 judgment entered against Golden.

She filed her purported class action, claiming that State Farm had a duty to disclose at the time of the policy issuance the possibly that house counsel would be used in the event of a third-part lawsuit. She alleged breach of “special, confidential and fiduciary duties and common law duties to disclose,” breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment.

Golden cited Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. Wills, 717 N.E.2d 151, 155-56 (Ind. 1999), saying the state’s justices acknowledged such a duty exists. But the case is not on point with hers, the 7th Circuit noted, as the insurance company in that suit used in-house counsel but made it seem like they were from an outside firm.

Current law does not require an insurer to disclose at the outset that its choice of counsel in the event a claim arises may be in-house counsel. The level of disclosure required is up to the insurance commissioner to decide, and the Indiana Department of Insurance has not chosen to require the type of notice that Golden requests, Judge Ilana Rovner wrote in Cindy Golden v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 12-3901.

The judges also rejected Golden’s request that the court certify the question of policy disclosure to the Indiana Supreme Court.

“As our discussion of Wills should make clear, we are not ‘genuinely uncertain’ about whether an insurer is obligated to disclose, at the time of policy issuance, its practice of using house counsel to defend insureds,” she wrote. “Nor do we believe this case presents a ‘matter of vital public concern’ worthy of certification to the Indiana Supreme Court.”
 

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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT