Monday, November 03, 2014
Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week and next
This week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 11/3/14):
Thursday, Nov. 6
9:00 AM - Stephen Robertson v. The Medical Assurance Co. (94S00-1406-CQ-378) Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 64, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana certified the following question of Indiana law for the Indiana Supreme Court’s consideration, which the Indiana Supreme Court accepted on June 30, 2014. The question, as framed by the federal court, is:
Does Indiana law allow the Patient’s Compensation Fund to pursue a claim against an insurer for the insurer’s breach of its duty of good faith to its insured, through the doctrine of equitable subrogation?
- 9:45 AM - State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Kimberly Earl (36S05-1408-CT-562) After a $250,000 jury verdict in favor of Earl on her uninsured motorist claim against State Farm, the Jackson Circuit Court entered judgment in favor of Earl. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of the $250,000 limit in Earl’s policy with State Farm, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Earl, 3 N.E.3d 1009 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: This was a Jan. 24th, 2-1 opinion where the majority wrote:
In this case, we are presented with an issue of first impression in Indiana. More particularly, appellant-defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) asks us to join other states that have determined Uninsured Motorist (UM) insurance limits to be inadmissible. * * * State Farm contends that evidence of the bodily injury limit was both irrelevant and prejudicial. Determining that evidence of the bodily injury limit was in fact both irrelevant and prejudicial, we reverse and remand this cause to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
- 10:30 AM - Jeffrey A. Weisheit v. State of Indiana (10S00-1307-DP-492) Weisheit was convicted of two murders and of arson and sentenced to death on the jury’s unanimous recommendation. The Clark Circuit Court sentenced Weisheit accordingly. In this direct criminal appeal, Weisheit argues various errors occurred during trial and at sentencing.
Next week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 11/10/14):
Monday, Nov. 10
- 10:30 AM - Jason and Justina Kramer v. Catholic Charities of the Diocese (71A03-1308-CT-301) An infant child’s pre-adoptive placement with the Kramers failed when the child’s father came forward, established his paternity of the child, and successfully contested the adoption. The Kramers then sued the adoption agency, Catholic Charities, alleging negligence for failing to discover, prior to the placement, the father’s registration with Indiana’s putative father registry. The trial court granted summary judgment to Catholic Charities. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. Kramer v. Catholic Charities of Diocese of Fort Wayne – South Bend, Inc., 6 N.E.3d 984 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. pending. Catholic Charities has petitioned the Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: Note that the oral argument will be held at Stewart Center, Purdue University, West Lafayette. And, before returning to Indianapolis, the Court will participate in a 1:30 p.m. dedication of a state historic marker honoring Tippecanoe County's first female lawyer, Helen Gougar.
This week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 11/3/14):
- No arguments currently scheduled.
Monday, November 10
- 11:00 AM - FLM LLC v. The Cincinnati Insurance Co., et al (49A02-1401-PL-17) The background facts are stated in FLM, LLC v. Cincinnati Insurance Co., 973 N.E.2d 1167 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied (2013). The trial court granted summary judgment for Cincinnati “as against any insurance obligation” under its commercial general liability (“CGL”) and umbrella policies, but the order specifically addressed only property damage coverage. The Court of Appeals majority determined that personal injury coverage was available and reversed and remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of FLM. The majority did not address property damage coverage. One judge concurred in result, concluding that personal injury coverage was not available but that property damage coverage was. The trial court asked FLM and Cincinnati to submit proposed orders on remand. FLM submitted a proposed order stating that both personal injury and property damage coverage were available. Cincinnati did not submit a proposed order or file an objection to FLM’s proposed order but did interplead $1.7 million into the trial court. FLM asserted that it was entitled to the funds and reserved the right to claim that the remaining policy limits exceeded that amount. After a hearing, the court signed FLM’s proposed order and an entry stating that the parties had agreed that the order should be entered; that the interpleaded funds should be paid to FLM; and that issues remained regarding the availability of additional coverage. FLM filed a summary judgment motion asserting that the CGL policy contains separate $1 million limits for property damage and personal injury coverage. Cincinnati filed a response and a motion to reconsider, asserting that no court had determined that property damage coverage was available and that Cincinnati had not agreed that the entry of FLM’s proposed order was proper. The court granted Cincinnati’s motion and struck all references to property damage coverage from its prior order. The court also denied FLM’s summary judgment motion as to policy limits, entered judgment for FLM only as to personal injury coverage, and decreed that the $1.7 million policy limits had been released to FLM in full satisfaction of the judgment. FLM now appeals, raising three issues: (1) whether Cincinnati waived any challenge to FLM’s proposed order; (2) whether property damage coverage is available under the CGL policy; and (3) whether the CGL policy has separate $1 million limits for property damage and personal injury coverage. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Baker, Crone and Pyle. [Where: Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
ONLY those Court of Appeals oral arguments presented in the Supreme or Court of Appeals Courtrooms will be accessible via videocast. [Note: This may be changing...]
The past COA webcasts which have been webcast are accessible here.
NOTE: For a printable version of this list of upcoming oral arguments, click on the date in the next line. Then select "Print" from your browser.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on November 3, 2014 08:38 AM
Posted to Upcoming Oral Arguments