Wednesday, November 05, 2014
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 4 NFP)
For publication opinions today (2):
In Erie Insurance Exchange v. Troy Sams and Teresa Sams, a 16-page opinion, Judge Bailey writes:
Following a bench trial, Erie Insurance Exchange (“Erie”) appeals the trial court’s judgment ordering Erie to pay $63,924.89 to Troy Sams and Teresa Sams (the “Samses”) for losses they sustained after a storm damaged their home. * * *In Randall Manson v. Mark L. Keglovits, a 16-page opinion, Judge Brown writes:
In sum, Erie urges us to supplant the trial court’s findings as to the cause and instead find that “it was the deteriorated and faulty shingles that set in motion the series of events that led to the loss[.]” (Appellant’s Br. at 16.) We decline Erie’s request to reweigh the evidence. See Associated Aviation Underwriters v. George Koch Sons, Inc., 712 N.E.2d 1071, 1073 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied. There is support in the record for the trial court’s finding that the storm caused the damage. The court found no other causes. Because the Policy unambiguously covers storm damage, the trial court’s conclusion is not clearly erroneous. * * *
The trial court based its judgment on the evidence the parties introduced, and the court’s judgment is well within the evidence presented. Therefore, under these specific facts, and based on the evidence presented in this case, the court’s judgment that the replacement cost of the Samses’ damaged roof, cathedral ceiling, and exterior vinyl siding was $63,924.89 was not clearly erroneous.
Conclusion. The trial court did not err in finding that the Erie Policy covered the storm damage to the Samses’ home. In addition, the court’s judgment of $63,924.89 was not clearly erroneous.
In this interlocutory appeal, Randall Manson appeals from the trial court’s January 31, 2014 rulings that the law of South Dakota is applicable in this case and that he is not entitled to summary judgment with respect to his alleged contributory negligence. Manson raises two issues, which we revise and restate as:NFP civil opinions today (1):
I. Whether the court properly concluded that the substantive law of South Dakota rather than Indiana is applicable in this cause; and
II. Whether the court erred in denying Manson’s cross-motion for summary judgment alleging he was not contributorily negligent as a matter of law under the law of South Dakota. We affirm.
NFP criminal opinions today (3):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on November 5, 2014 11:12 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions