« Ind. Law - More on: "Bloomfield to 'test' golf carts on the streets this weekend" | Main | Ind. Decisions - Transfer list for week ending June 6, 2008 »

Friday, June 06, 2008

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 10 NFP)

For publication opinions today (2):

In Old Republic Insurance Company v. RLI Insurance Company, et al , a 17-page opinion, Judge Najam writes:

Old Republic Insurance Company (“Old Republic”) appeals the trial court’s order denying Old Republic’s motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment to RLI Insurance Company (“RLI”), The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania (“ISOP”), First Specialty Insurance Corporation (“First Specialty”), and Debra Boboruzian. Old Republic raises two issues for our review, which we restate as the following issue: whether Indiana Code Section 27-8-9-92 (“Indiana’s Lease Statute” or the “Lease Statute”) may be applied to determine the priority of insurance coverage between a primary insurance policy and true excess policies. We affirm. * * *

In sum, we hold that Indiana Code Section 27-8-9-9 applies only to determine the priority of coverage between or among policies affording the same level of coverage. Here, the Old Republic Policy provides primary coverage, while the RLI Excess Policy, the ISOP Umbrella Policy, and the First Specialty Excess Policy each offer true excess coverage. See Monroe Guar., 816 N.E.2d at 492 (quoting Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 603 A.2d at 302). Thus, the Lease Statute cannot be applied to prioritize the Excess Insurers’ policies ahead of the Old Republic Policy. The trial court did not err in holding that Indiana Code Section 27-8-9-9 is inapplicable to Old Republic’s declaratory judgment action and in granting summary judgment to the Excess Insurers.

In Henry C. Woodward v. Heritage Construction Co., Inc. , a 14-page opinion, Judge Najam writes:

Henry C. Woodward appeals the trial court’s orders in favor of Heritage Construction Company’s (“Heritage’s”) action to foreclose on a mechanic’s lien and request for attorney’s fees and costs. Woodward also appeals the court’s denial of his motion to amend the pleadings to conform with the evidence. Woodward raises three issues for our review, which we restate as follows: 1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Woodward’s request to amend the pleadings to conform to the evidence, which would have permitted Woodward to argue an otherwise unraised affirmative defense. 2. Whether the court’s finding that Heritage’s mechanic’s lien had been timely filed was clearly erroneous. 3. Whether the court abused its discretion in the admission of evidence pertaining to Heritage’s attorney’s fees. On cross-appeal, Heritage raises the following issue: whether the trial court erroneously denied Heritage’s request for prejudgment interest. We affirm. * * *

In sum, the trial court did not err in denying Woodward’s Motion to Amend, in finding Heritage’s notice of its intention to hold a mechanic’s lien timely filed, or in permitting Heritage to proceed with evidence of its attorney’s fees even though Heritage had rested its case. Further, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Heritage prejudgment interest. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court in all respects.

NFP civil opinions today (1):

David G. Tennis v. AAA (NFP) - "Plaintiff-Appellant David G. Tennis appeals the trial court’s rulings in favor of Defendant-Appellee AAA Bail Bonds, Inc. We affirm. * * *

"The agency agreement unambiguously provides that Tennis is responsible to cover any losses his actions caused AAA and/or the Surety. Our review of the transcript discloses that there is written evidence and/or testimony to support AAA’s claims. We will not reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of the witnesses."

NFP criminal opinions today (9):

John Wells v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Johanna McGhehey v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Ronald D. Osborne v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Chad Michael Farrell v. State of Indiana (NFP)

James B. Steele v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Tony R. Gray v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Lorne Newkirk v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Jesus Lozano Rodriguez v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Andrew Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on June 6, 2008 10:19 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions