Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

This case involved Safeco Insurance Company (Safeco) appealing against the trial court's dismissal of its third-party spoliation and negligence claims against the Michaelis Corporation. The dispute originated from a fire in a home insured by Safeco, which resulted in over $500,000 worth of damage. Safeco hired Michaelis to restore the property, and during this process, the kitchen, identified as the origin of the fire, was demolished and the dehydrator believed to have caused the fire was discarded. Safeco subsequently sued Michaelis for negligence and spoliation of evidence, arguing this impeded its ability to bring a successful claim against the dehydrator manufacturer.The trial court dismissed both claims, sparking Safeco's appeal. The Indiana Supreme Court held that under the given facts, Indiana common law did not recognize the tort of third-party spoliation and therefore upheld the trial court’s ruling. The court established that a special relationship did not exist between Safeco and Michaelis that would impose a duty on Michaelis to preserve the evidence. Furthermore, the court ruled it was not reasonably foreseeable that Safeco would be harmed by the loss of the dehydrator. Public policy considerations also weighed against recognizing third-party spoliation absent a special relationship.In addition, the court ruled that Safeco's negligence claim was essentially a third-party spoliation claim and failed for the same reasons. The court also dismissed Safeco's argument that Michaelis assumed a duty of care to preserve the evidence, as this was not alleged in the amended complaint and was raised for the first time on appeal. View "Safeco Insurance Company of Indiana v. Blue Sky Innovation Group, Inc" on Justia Law

The case pertains to a marital dissolution dispute in Indiana where the husband's police pension constituted the majority of the couple's marital estate. The husband was reluctant to share his pension with his wife, expressing his intention to disregard any court order mandating him to do so. As a response, the trial court ordered the husband to secure and subsidize a life insurance policy to ensure the wife received her share of the marital estate. The husband challenged the trial court's authority, arguing that the court did not consider the tax implications of his future pension payments.The Indiana Supreme Court upheld the trial court's decision. It ruled that the trial court had broad statutory authority to order a security or other guarantee, such as a life insurance policy, when necessary, to secure the division of property. The court also held that the husband had waived his challenge regarding the tax consequences of his future pension payments.The facts of the case reveal that the husband and wife had been married for nearly twenty-six years. The husband's police pension had a market value of over $1.1 million, constituting over 85% of the marital estate. The husband was unwilling to share his pension with his wife, and the wife expressed concern that she might not receive anything. The trial court ordered the husband to make monthly payments and obtain a life insurance policy that named her as owner and beneficiary. The husband contested this order, leading to the appeal. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision, maintaining that the court had the authority to secure the wife's share of the marital estate through a life insurance policy. View "Cooley v. Cooley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court dismissing a Monroe County action with prejudice and denying Appellant's motions to correct error and to amend her complaint, holding that a plaintiff seeking tort damages from both government and non-government defendants must sue all such tortfeasors in one lawsuit.Plaintiff sustained injuries while driving in an I-69 construction zone. Plaintiff obtained a judgment against a non-government defendant in Lake County to satisfy the requirements for obtaining insurance coverage. After Plaintiff and the insurer settled her insurance claims Plaintiff again sued for the same injuries, this time in the Monroe Circuit Court against six other defendants, both government and non-government. The trial court dismissed the action with prejudice, concluding that collateral estoppel and claim splitting barred Plaintiff's claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court was correct in dismissing Plaintiff's action on issue preclusion grounds; and (2) Plaintiff was not entitled to relief on her remaining claims of error. View "Davidson v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment for Illinois Casualty Company in this declaratory judgment action, holding that a liquor liability exclusion in the relevant policy absolved Illinois Casualty of a duty to defend or indemnify its insured under its general business owners' policy.Illinois Casualty insured Big Daddy's Show Club. Third-parties filed a lawsuit against Big Daddy's and related entities (collectively, Parks defendants) claiming that Big Daddy's violated Indiana's Dram Shop Act, Ind. Code 7.1-5-10-15.5. Illinois Casualty field a separate declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that it did not owe a duty to defend or indemnify the Parks defendants in the underlying lawsuit. The trial court granted summary judgment for Illinois Casualty. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Illinois Casualty did not owe a duty to defend or indemnify the Parks defendants under the relevant policies. View "Parks v. Illinois Casualty Co." on Justia Law

In this insurance dispute, the Supreme Court held that the MCS-90 endorsement, which provides that if a motor vehicle is involved in an accident the insurer may be required to pay any final judgment against the insured arising out of the accident, does not apply to an accident that occurred during an intrastate trip transporting non-hazardous property.One way motor carries can comply with the financial requirements of the federal Motor Carrier Act of 1980 is by adding an MCS-90 endorsement to their insurance policy. The insurer in this case brought an action seeking a declaration that the MCS-90 endorsement creating a suretyship whereby the insurer agreed to pay a final judgment against the insured in certain negligence cases did not apply. The trial court found that the MCS-90 endorsement applied, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) because the insured driver was neither engaged in interests commerce at the time of the action nor transporting hazardous property, the MCS-90 endorsement did not apply; and (2) the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify the driver. View "Progressive Southeastern Insurance Co. v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Continental Western Insurance Company and dismissing G&G Oil Company of Indiana's claim for losses from a ransomware attack, holding that neither party demonstrated that it was entitled to summary judgment.G&G Oil purchased an insurance policy from Continental. One provision of the policy - the "Computer Fraud" provision - covered loss "resulting directly from the use of any computer to fraudulently cause a transfer of money." G&G Oil was the target of a ransomware attack and submitted a claim for coverage of its losses under the "Commercial Crime" provision of the policy. Continental denied the claim. G&G Oil then brought this complaint. The trial court granted summary judgment for Continental. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, although G&G Oil's losses "resulted directly from the use of a computer," neither party was entitled to summary judgment. View "G&G Oil Co. of Indiana v. Continental Western Insurance Co." on Justia Law

In this insurance dispute arising from a fatal car crash, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the trial court rejecting the argument of the decedent's estate that it was entitled to $25,000 in underinsured-motorist (UIM) coverage under the decedent's parents' policy and granting summary judgment for Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company, holding that the estate was entitled to summary judgment.Shelina Glover died in a car crash. Shelina's estranged husband was driving the vehicle in which she died. Shelina's estate (the Estate) settled its claims against the two responsible drivers, whose insurers paid policy limits. The Estate also received two settlements of $25,000 each for UIM coverage from Shelina's carrier and from that of her husband. At issue was the Estate's request for further UIM coverage of $25,000 under Shelina's parents' Allstate policy. The trial court denied the request. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding that the estate was entitled to summary judgment on the issues of whether Shelina was an "insured person" and the availability of $25,000 in further UIM coverage under the parents' Allstate policy. View "Glover v. Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Co." on Justia Law

In this insurance dispute stemming from a fatal car collision, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of Insurer, holding that the decedent's estate was entitled to summary judgment on the issues of whether the decedent was an "insured person" and the availability of $25,000 in further UIM coverage under the decedent's parents' Allstate policy.Shelina Glover died in a car accident. The insurers of the two responsible drivers paid policy limits, and Glover's estate received separate settlements for underinsured-motorist (UIM) coverage from Glover's own carrier and from that of Glover's husband, who was driving the vehicle on the day of the accident. The Estate requested further UIM coverage under Glover's parents' Allstate policy. The trial court granted summary judgment for Allstate, concluding that the policy's offset and anti-stacking provisions barred the Estate from recovery because the amount the Estate received from other insurers exceeded the limits under the policy. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding (1) Glover was an "insured person" under the policy; and (2) the Estate's UIM settlements were not offset against the policy's UMI limit, and therefore, the Estate had an additional $25,000 UIM coverage available to it under the Allstate policy. View "Glover v. Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the trial court's grant of summary judgment for Defendants, holding that the trial court erred by entering summary judgment for defendant health-insurance plans, which were governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), based on ERISA preemption.Plaintiff, a health-care provider, contracted with two third-party networks. Defendants and its affiliated employee health-insurance plans contacted with both health networks. Seven patients received treatments from Plaintiff, and the patients were covered under Defendants' plans. Plaintiff sued Defendants, alleging that they failed to pay agreed reimbursement rates for covered services under their plans. The trial court granted summary judgment against Plaintiff, concluding that Plaintiff's claims were preempted under ERISA's conflict-preemption provision, 29 U.S.C. 1144(a). The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding that genuine issues of disputed fact existed concerning the central issue of whether the provider's claims were denied coverage under the plans or whether the provider's claims necessitated interpreting the plan documents. View "FMS Nephrology Partners North Central Indiana Dialysis Centers, LLC v. Meritain Health, Inc." on Justia Law

At issue was whether the term “others we protect” under a decedent’s employer’s commercial auto policy included the decedent.The decedent was killed by an uninsured driver while the decedent was mowing his home’s lawn near the roadside. The decedent’s estate sought uninsured motorist benefits, arguing that the decedent qualified for coverage under the employer’s commercial auto policy’s term “others we protect.” The insurance company denied the claim. The Supreme Court agreed with the insurance policy, holding (1) the term “others we protect” is unambiguous and impervious to judicial construction; and (2) accordingly, as a matter of law, the decedent did not qualify as “others we protect” under the policy when he was struck and killed by the uninsured motorist. View "Erie Indemnity Co. v. Estate of Brian L. Harris" on Justia Law