The Indiana Law Blog: Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 today (and 17 NFP)

« Ind. Courts - "Haughee's appeals all are denied" | Main | Ind. Courts - "Division of State Court Administration Seeks Director of Appellate Court Information Technology" »

Wednesday, July 02, 2008

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 today (and 17 NFP)

For publication opinions today (3):

In Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles and State of Indiana v. Brent Orange, a 7-page opinion, Judge Kirsch writes:

Intervenor, the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles (the “BMV”), appeals the trial court’s denial of its motion to correct error holding that Brent Orange (“Orange”) was entitled to his plea-negotiated probationary driving privileges after Orange, who held a commercial driver’s license (“CDL”), was convicted of operating a noncommercial vehicle while intoxicated (“OWI”). The issue before us is whether Indiana law prohibits probationary driving privileges for a driver who holds a CDL and is convicted of OWI while driving a noncommercial vehicle. We affirm.

In Safe Auto Ins. Co. v. Enterprise Leasing Co. of Indianapolis, Inc., et al. , an 8-page opinion, Judge Mathias writes:

After a policyholder was involved in a automobile accident in Virginia while driving a rental car owned by Enterprise Leasing (“Enterprise”), Safe Auto Insurance Company (“Safe Auto”) filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in Adams Circuit Court arguing its policyholder was not driving a covered vehicle, and therefore, there was no coverage under the Safe Auto policy. Enterprise then moved for summary judgment asserting that Safe Auto’s policy language excluding coverage for leased vehicles is void because it is contrary to Indiana Code section 27-8-9-9. The trial court agreed and entered summary judgment in favor of Enterprise. Safe Auto appeals and argues that there is no conflict between the statute and its policy provision.

We conclude that while Safe Auto’s extraordinarily limited coverage for leased vehicles is unusual at the very least, this limited coverage is not in conflict with state statute. Accordingly, the trial court erred when it granted Enterprise’s motion for summary judgment and we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. * * *

While we might be persuaded by Enterprise’s public policy argument, that argument is more properly made to the General Assembly. “[T]he purpose of the Financial Responsibility Act is simply ‘to assure no more than the availability of the statutory minimum amount of coverage.’” Am. Family Ins. Co. v. Globe Am. Cas. Co., 774 N.E.2d 932, 939 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (citation omitted), trans. denied. Safe Auto’s policy provides coverage for Harrison’s vehicle and a temporary replacement vehicle in the event that his vehicle is being serviced or repaired, or has been stolen or destroyed. Moreover, insureds have a duty to read and to know the contents of their insurance policies. See Anderson Mattress Co., Inc. v. First State Ins. Co., 617 N.E.2d 932, 939 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993). Contrary to Enterprise’s argument, there is no law in Indiana requiring insurance companies to provide coverage for vehicles leased by their insureds for any reason and in any circumstance. Finally, it is important to note that Harrison admitted that he did not expect his Safe Auto policy to provide coverage for the Enterprise truck, yet he did not purchase Enterprise’s Supplemental Liability coverage.

For all of these reasons, we conclude that the trial court erred when it granted Enterprise’s motion for summary judgment. We therefore reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

In Thomas K. Hupfer v. Mary and Ernest Miller , a 6-page opinion, Judge Mathias writes:

Mary D. Miller (“Miller”) prevailed on a claim filed in Vanderburgh Superior Court for medical malpractice against Thomas K. Hupfer (“Hupfer”). She filed a motion for prejudgment interest, which the trial court granted. Hupfer appeals and argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it awarded prejudgment interest to Miller. We affirm.

NFP civil opinions today (5):

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of J.S.; and L.S. and E.S. v. Dept. of Child Svcs. of Cass Co. (NFP)

Sheila Skobel v. Douglas Shaw d/b/a Doug's Welding & Gate Shop (NFP) - "Finding that Sheila is not bound by the prior litigation because she was not a party and the issue of her liability was not fully litigated and finding multiple issues of fact, we reverse and remand for further proceedings."

Michael Chatwell v. Dave's Automotive (NFP) - "Specifically, Chatwell argues that the court clearly erred by failing to properly consider his submitted evidence. Concluding that the small claims court’s judgment is not clearly erroneous, we affirm."

Kathleen A. Grothe v. Young Park (NFP) - "The evidence must support the findings and the findings must support the judgment. Hyde, 751 N.E.2d at 765. Here, they do not. The inconsistencies between the trial court’s findings and its conclusions render the trial court’s decision clearly erroneous. They also make appellate review impossible. We vacate the trial court’s judgment and remand for entry of new findings, conclusions and judgment consistent with this opinion and consistent with each other. In its entry, the trial court shall give due consideration to the contributions of Kathleen of her pre-marital assets and post-marital earnings. Vacated and remanded."

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of A.P. (child) and N.P. (father) v. Marion Co. Dept. of Child Svcs. (NFP)

NFP criminal opinions today (12):

Tomika Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Marzono R. Shelly v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Johnny P. Ford v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Romie L. Jackson v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Donald Dixon v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Richard Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Corey D. Tyner v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Thomas Pierce, III v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Kelly S. Craig v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Michael Benson v. State of Indiana (NFP)