Home » Search

Search Results

7231 results for 'articles'

To refine your search through our archives use our Advanced Search

The new frontier: Indiana attorneys navigating name, image, likeness ‘Wild, Wild West’

| Jordan Morey

On June 21, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously ruled the National Collegiate Athletic Association couldn’t prohibit athletes on teams at member schools from receiving certain education-related compensation. In affirming the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ opinion in NCAA, et al. v. Alston, et al., college athletes were given the green light to get paid for their names, images and likenesses. By June 30, the NCAA had released an interim NIL policy, providing general guidelines as to how universities and athletes could approach NIL business ventures while also complying with existing NCAA bylaws prohibiting “pay-for-play” arrangements.

Opinions March 29, 2022

Court of Appeals of Indiana
U.S. Automatic Sprinkler Corporation v. Erie Insurance Exchange, Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut a/s/o Sycamore Springs Surgical Center, LLC, Dr. Nancy Pruett, D.D.S. and 3D Exhibits, Inc.
21A-CT-580
Civil Tort. Affirms Marion Superior Court denial of U.S. Automatic Sprinkler Corp.’s motion for summary judgment against Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut. Finds the subrogation waiver in Automatic Sprinkler’s contract with the Sycamore Springs Surgical Center does not apply because the sprinkler company did the work at the request of the landlord and not under its contract with the surgery center. Reverses the denial of Automatic Sprinkler’s motion for summary judgment against Erie Insurance Exchange, Nancy Pruett, D.D.S. and 3D Exhibits. Holds that under Citizen Gas & Coke Utility v. American Economy Insurance Co., 486 N.E.2d 998 (Ind. 1985) the requirement of privity is still binding in the property-damage context.

Waterlogged tenants fail to sink privity requirement at COA

| Marilyn Odendahl

Although the tenants of an office that flooded after a sprinkler system malfunctioned floated “compelling arguments” as to why the sprinkler company should reimburse their insurance carriers for the damage, the Court of Appeals of Indiana was anchored by precedent which holds that the requirement of privity still stands in the property-damage context.