October 2011

Does an Insurer Owe Coverage, Defense and Indemnity, for Costs Incurred by the Policyholder Before Notice to the Insurer? Dreaded v. St. Paul Revisited

The Indiana Supreme Court established a bright-line test for an insurer’s obligation to defend in Dreaded, Inc. v. St. Paul Guardian Insur. Co., 904 N.E.2d 1267, 1273 (Ind. 2009), holding that “an insurer cannot defend a claim of which it has no knowledge.” 

Recently, a policyholder brought suit attempting to revisit the issue of whether an insurer owes for pre-tender defense and indemnity costs. In Travelers Insurance Companies v. Maplehurst Farms, Inc., Case No.: 49A04-1006-PL-394, August 24, 2011 (rehearing is pending), the Indiana Court of Appeals rejected the policyholder’s request to distinguish the Indiana Supreme Court’s Dreaded decision. Maplehurst has requested reconsideration on rehearing and a petition for transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court is likely.  For full article, click here.

Back to top

Paralegal of the Year Award

Angela R. White has received The Indiana Paralegal Association’s Paralegal of the Year Award for 2011.  Traditionally, this has been IPA’s most distinguished award, given to a member of IPA who has demonstrated exceptional loyalty and commitment to the betterment of IPA, and is recognized as being the most valued, the most respected and the most deserving of IPA members to earn this sterling reputation.  Congratulations, Angela!

Back to top

Set-Off and Credits in UM/UIM Claims

Kerwin Masten and Heather Masten v. AMCO Insurance Co.
49A02-1009-CT-998, Decided August 24, 2011, Petition for Transfer filed.

The Indiana Court of Appeals recently reviewed the issue of allocation of set-off and credits for tortfeasor settlements with a automobile policyholder with UM/UIM Coverage.   In reviewing the specific policy language, the Court of Appeals determined that an “underinsured” motorist only applied where the tortfeasor limits were less than the policyholder’s limits and no set-off was allowed to the insurer where the tortfeasor’s limits were equal to the limits.  For full article, click here.

Back to top

District Court Upholds One-Year Suit Limitation

On March 11, 2011, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Judge Rudy Lozano presiding, issued an Opinion and Order granting summary judgment for USAA Casualty Insurance Company (“USAA”) in the case of Brian Royer and Stephanie Royer v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company , 2011 WL 923490 (N.D. Ind. March 11, 2011).  The specific issue on summary judgment was whether Ind. Code § 27-1-13-17, requiring that suit limitation provisions in insurance policies be not less than two (2) years from the date of the loss, prohibited the enforcement of the one-year suit limit at issue in the Royer policy.  The District Court held that Ind. Code § 27-1-13-17 did not apply to the one-year suit limit in the policy and applied the one-year suit limit to bar the Royers’ claims. For full article, click here.

Back to top