Wednesday, July 29, 2015
Ind. Decisions - Supreme Court issues one opinion today, re a petition on rehearing
In Wellpoint, Inc. (F/K/A Anthem, Inc.) and Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, AIG Europe (U.K.) Limited, et al, a 6-page opinion on a petition for rehearing, Justice Dickson writes:
Appellees Continental Casualty Company and Twin City Fire Insurance Co. (collectively "CNA"), have petitioned for rehearing with respect to our opinion in this matter, Wellpoint, Inc. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 29 N.E.3d 716 (Ind. 2015). The petition asserts a single claim—that a portion of our opinion exceeds the power granted by Trial Rule 56(B), which states that "[w]hen any party has moved for summary judgment, the court may grant summary judgment for any other party upon the issues raised by the motion although no motion for summary judgment is filed by such party." T.R. 56(B) (emphasis added). CNA does not challenge our reversal of the trial court's grant of its motion for summary judgment, but argues that our opinion should not have also granted summary judgment for Anthem as to issues not raised by CNA's summary judgment motion. CNA seeks modification of the fifth paragraph of our opinion to clarify that its summary judgment motion "raised only certain issues of law prior to the close of discovery," Pet. for Reh'g at 13, and revision of our concluding language that could be read to foreclose de-fenses not raised in the summary judgment proceedings. Appellants Wellpoint, Inc. and Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc. (collectively "Anthem") respond that summary judgment in Anthem's favor is proper and further that CNA has waived any additional affirmative defenses.
We agree Trial Rule 56(B) limits our authority to grant summary judgment for Anthem to the issues raised in CNA's motion. Before the trial court, CNA requested summary judgment in its favor on certain enumerated counts/claims for the reasons set forth in its supporting memorandum. * * *
[The opinion then specifies several modification to the opinion, in para 5 and the conclusion.]
Our opinion in this case is modified accordingly but in all other respects remains in full force.
Rush, C.J., and Rucker, David, and Massa, JJ., concur.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on July 29, 2015 04:11 PM
Posted to Ind. Sup.Ct. Decisions