« Ind. Law - Yet again on: Home sellers lose with this new law | Main | Law - More on: Mass. SJC hears challenges on same-sex marriage ban for nonresidents [Updated] »
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Ind. Decisions - Two today from the Court of Appeals
Christopher M. Matson v. State of Indiana - admissibility of evidence obtained as a result of a warrantless search and seizure. Affirmed.
In State Farm Mutual Insurance Company and Michael Cancel v. Francisco Gutierrez, a 30-page opinion (including a concurrring/dissenting in part opinion by Judge Bailey beginning on p. 23), Judge Najam concludes:
In sum, the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Cancel’s motion to bifurcate the issues for trial, and we remand for a new trial on Gutierrez’s negligence claim against Cancel. State Farm’s motion to bifurcate one month before trial was untimely. The trial court erred when it denied State Farm’s motion for judgment on the evidence regarding Gutierrez’s bad faith claim, and we reverse the award for bad faith and the punitive damages award. The trial court did not err when it denied State Farm’s motion for judgment on the evidence with respect to Gutierrez’s breach of contract claim, and we affirm the $17,221.31 award on that claim. While the attorney-client privilege is implicated in Gutierrez’s request for attorney Blaize’s opinion and testimony, State Farm waived that privilege when it disclosed attorney Blaize’s opinion on coverage in the redacted version of its Claim Committee Report submitted in response to discovery. Finally, we agree with Cancel that the trial court should have excluded evidence of his insurance policy, State Farm’s opinion on his liability, and his statements to State Farm. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a new trial.BAILEY, Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part. I respectfully dissent from the majority’s determination that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Michael Cancel’s untimely motion to bifurcate Francisco Gutierrez’s “liability” claim against Cancel and his “bad faith” and “breach of contract” allegations against State Farm. I likewise disagree with the majority’s decision to remand for a new trial on Gutierrez’s negligence claim against Cancel. Instead, I believe that the trial court acted within its discretion when it denied Cancel’s motion to bifurcate and, further, that the jury verdict of $160,000 was within the bounds of the evidence presented such that a new trial is unwarranted.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 30, 2006 11:05 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions