Monday, September 28, 2015
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 1 opinion(s) today (and 2 NFP memorandum decisions)
For publication opinions today (1):
In Michael R. Pike, and Chassidy L. Pike v. Conestoga Title Insurance Co., a 9-page opinion, Judge Brown writes:
Generally the interpretation of an insurance policy presents a question of law and is thus appropriate for summary judgment. * * *NFP civil decisions today (1):
The trial court explained that it granted summary judgment in favor of Conestoga because the Pikes failed to provide Conestoga with notice of their claim as required by the insurance policy and Conestoga did not act in bad faith in denying it. The notice requirement is material and of the essence in insurance contracts. * * *
Despite these two notices which were given directly to the Pikes and advised them of interests adverse to the title of their estate which might cause loss for the insurance company, the Pikes failed to promptly notify Conestoga. The Pikes clearly failed to comply with the notice provision of their Conestoga policy. * * *
[T]he contract requires only notice of an adverse claim that might cause the insurance company to be liable. The Pikes had such knowledge as early as June 2006 and then again in November 2006. Under the terms of the policy, the Pikes were required to notify Conestoga at those times.
We further note that to the extent the Pikes argue that they did not have knowledge of their claim because they are unsophisticated, we note that insureds have a duty to read and to know the contents of their insurance policies. See Safe Auto, 889 N.E.2d at 397.
Conclusion. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s order entering summary judgment in favor of Conestoga.
NFP criminal decisions today (1):
Brandon Eubank v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Posted by Marcia Oddi on September 28, 2015 11:25 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions