Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 2 NFP)

For publication opinions today (2):

In Jerry and Becky French v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. and Jane Hodson, a 16-page opinion, Judge Najam writes:

Jerry and Becky French (the "Frenches") appeal from the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Jane Hodson on the Frenches' claim of negligent advice and procurement of insurance. The Frenches raise three issues for our review, which we restate as whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Hodson. We affirm. * * *

Although we have serious misgivings as to whether Hodson exercised reasonable skill, care, and diligence in the procurement of more than $200,000 in homeowner's coverage for a $76,000 manufactured home, we need not address that issue. Assuming Hodson acted negligently, the Frenches have not suffered an injury proximately caused by her purported negligence. * * * Here, if Hodson was negligent, it was because she sold a policy to the Frenches with limits beyond that which they could reasonably expect to recover, thereby rendering the excess coverage illusory. Accordingly, the Frenches were damaged by having to pay a higher premium than they would have paid had Hodson procured the proper policy with the appropriate limits. The measure of the Frenches' damages is the difference between those two premiums.

Further, it cannot be said that the Frenches' costs in rebuilding their home is the appropriate measure of damages here. Before the Frenches began construction on their new home, State Farm informed them that it would only pay the replacement cost of the Manufactured Home, or about $80,000. Nonetheless, the Frenches chose to proceed with the construction of their new home, incurring approximately $185,000 in costs. Thus, the Frenches did not rely on Hodson's conduct when, knowing that there was a coverage dispute, they chose to proceed with construction of the stick-built home. * * *

In sum, again, there are a number of reasons to question whether Hodson took the steps necessary to satisfy her duty to exercise reasonable skill, care, and diligence in the procurement of the Policy for the Frenches. But regardless of the alleged negligence, it cannot be said that such negligence was the proximate cause of an injury to the Frenches. And the Frenches did not rely on Hodson when they decided to proceed with construction of the stick-built home. We express no opinion on the ultimate resolution of the Frenches' claims against State Farm for breach of contract. Rather, we hold only that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to Hodson.

In Larry Keesling, Vivian Keesling and Heritage Land Co. v. T.E.K. Partners, LLC., et al., a 9-page opinion, Judge Najam writes:

Larry Keesling and Vivian Keesling ("the Keeslings") and Heritage Land Company ("Heritage Land") appeal from the trial court's in rem judgment in favor of T.E.K. Partners, L.L.C. ("T.E.K.") on T.E.K.'s complaint on a 1999 installment promissory note (the "original note") and to foreclose mortgages against the Keeslings and Heritage Land. The Keeslings and Heritage Land present three issues for our review:
1. Whether the trial court erred when it entered a final in rem judgment in the amount of $181,331.78.
2. Whether the trial court erred when it did not release a thirty-six-acre tract as collateral after the Keeslings and Heritage Land were discharged as sureties from their personal liability on the original note.
3. Whether the trial court erred when it ordered that the thirty-six-acre tract be sold first to satisfy the judgment.
We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions.

NFP civil opinions today (2):

In the Matter of H.P., a Child Alleged to be in Need of Services, Nathanial R. & Desiree P. v. Franklin Co. Office of Family and Children (NFP) - "H.P. was adjudged to be a child in need of services by the Franklin Circuit Court. H.P.'s parents appeal the adjudication arguing that it is not supported by sufficient evidence. Concluding that the evidence is insufficient to support the CHINS adjudication, we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion."

Invol. Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of B.S.; Dawn Lewis and Joe Smart v. Marion Co. Dept. of Child Services, and Child Advocates, Inc. (NFP) - "Concluding that the evidence was sufficient, that termination does not violate the parents' constitutional rights, and that termination was in accordance with the purpose of Title 31, we affirm."

NFP criminal opinions today (0):