Adopting the efficient and predominant cause analysis, the Indiana Supreme Court has found an insurance company did not have a duty to defend two Kokomo bars and their owner who are alleged to have continued serving alcohol to an inebriated patron who subsequently got into a drunken driving accident.
Indiana Supreme Court justices will hear two additional oral arguments this month, including cases regarding insurance coverage for a pair of Kokomo bars and the reversal of an armed burglary conviction.
Neither an insurer nor a claimant was entitled to summary judgment in a dispute over coverage of a ransomware attack, the Indiana Supreme Court has ruled, sending the case back to the trial court.
A panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals has affirmed judgment for a construction company against its subcontractor after a negligence suit was brought against it following an accident that took place in a Lake County traffic pattern the companies were working on.
An Indiana Court of Appeals panel has reversed the grant of a quadriplegic man’s motion to dismiss a declaratory judgment action after it found he was not entitled to bodily injury liability coverage under his insurance policy.
Deciding an issue of first impression, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a favorable ruling for an insurance company following arguments that it had no obligation to defend former customers in outside litigation.
An insurance company failed to persuade the Indiana Court of Appeals to set aside a $400,000 default judgment against its insured defendants based on the argument that it had an interest in limiting future liability related to the underlying truck crash liability lawsuit.
A federal appeals court reversed a breach-of-contract ruling for media company Emmis Communications Corp. arising from a shareholder dispute. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the district court should have found in favor of Emmis’ insurer instead.
An insurance company is under no obligation to defend or indemnify a southern Indiana father whose son shot and killed a man on their property, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled, reversing a trial court order denying summary judgment for the insurer.
An insurance dispute over who should pay for a bicyclist’s injuries sustained after he was struck by a vehicle driven by a home health aide will continue after an appeals court ruling that left the question open for now.
A Mississippi-based bank that was sued for charging excessive overdraft fees was not entitled to coverage under its insurance policy because the policy specifically excluded claims arising from fees or charges, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.
Summary judgment was properly awarded to an insurance company that denied a request to defend a construction company in a negligence suit, the Indiana Court of Appeals found Tuesday. The judges ruled the terms of the policy only obligated the insurance company after a certain amount of damages had been paid.
An insurance company will have to defend its client pharmaceutical distributor in fending off a West Virginia lawsuit seeking restitution for the epidemic of prescription drug abuse.
A trial court incorrectly granted summary judgment in favor of a loss prevention company’s insurer over whether it had a duty to defend a Menard customer’s lawsuit stemming from actions of the loss prevention specialist.
An insurance provider was unsuccessful in its attempt to convince the Indiana Court of Appeals to change its mind that the company has a duty to indemnify or defend.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Ticor Title Insurance Co. breached its duty to defend Home Federal Savings Bank on a counterclaim brought by a general contractor on the failed ethanol plant in Cloverdale.
The Indiana Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that a homeowner’s insurance policy is clear that the ingestion of methadone by a guest at his house and his subsequent injuries are excluded from the policy’s liability coverage.
The Indiana Supreme Court has given state casinos a double win, strengthening their rights by saying they can exclude card-counters and that problem gamblers can’t recover damages stemming from gambling losses as long as the casinos are following state regulations.