« Ind. Decisions - More on "Wis. Supreme Court to Rule on Predictive Algorithms Used in Sentencing" | Main | Ind. Decisions - More on: The opinion effectively denying public access to legislative emails, CAC v. Indiana House, is now final »
Thursday, July 14, 2016
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 opinion(s) today (and 3 NFP memorandum decision(s))
For publication opinions today (3):
In Fireman's Fund Insurance Company v. Matthew W. Ackerman, a 15-page opinion, Judge Barnes writes:
Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company (“Fireman’s Fund”) appeals the trial court’s denial of its motion for summary judgment regarding a claim by Matthew W. Ackerman. * * *In Randy Faulkner & Associates, Inc. and Randall W. Faulkner v. The Restoration Church, a 21-page opinion, Judge Robb writes:
We conclude that, given Indiana Code Section 27-7-5-1.5(b), Fireman’s Fund was not required to provide UM/UIM coverage in the 2008 Evansville Marine policy. Fireman’s Fund was entitled to judgment as a matter of law and there were no genuine issues of material fact. The trial court erred by denying Fireman’s Fund’s motion for summary judgment.
The trial court erred by denying Fireman’s Fund’s motion for summary judgment regarding the UM/UIM coverage issue. We reverse and remand.
RFA and Faulkner present four issues on appeal and the Church presents one issue on cross-appeal. We consolidate the issues into two dispositive issues: 1) whether the trial court erred when it found that RFA had waived its right to receive thirty days’ written notice of the Church’s intent to renew the parties’ lease agreement; and 2) whether the trial court clearly erred when it concluded that RFA’s and Faulkner’s evidence of damages on their claim for tortious interference with a business relationship was speculative.In State of Indiana v. John K. Sturman , a 37-page opinion, Judge Riley concludes:
We conclude the trial court’s determination that RFA had waived its right to receive written notice of the Church’s intent to renew the parties’ lease agreement is not supported by sufficient evidence. We also conclude the trial court’s determination that RFA’s and Faulkner’s evidence of damages on their tort claim was speculative is not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s judgment for the Church on the Church’s breach of contract claim and vacate the corresponding damage award, affirm the trial court’s judgment that RFA and Faulkner are entitled to no damages on their tort claim, and remand for further proceedings.
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing Counts 1-3 on the basis that the trial court failed to state an offense in the Information, and by dismissing Count 1 as being barred by the statute of limitations. We further conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Sturman’s motion to dismiss Counts 1-6 and 8-19 on the basis that the charges do not state the alleged offenses with sufficient certainty; nor did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying Sturman’s motion to dismiss Counts 4-19 on the basis that Indiana Code section 16-42-19-20 is unconstitutionally vague. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.NFP civil decisions today (0):
NFP criminal decisions today (3):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on July 14, 2016 11:24 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions