12 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1925–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Indiana Insurance v. DeZuttigreen2 sentences2018Co. v. DeZutti, 408 N.E.2d 1275, 1278 (Ind. 1980) (noting the “basic principle” that exclusion clauses do not grant or enlarge coverage but instead are limitations or restrictions on the insuring clause). 2009Thompson we explicitly recognized the 1986 change in language, 686 N.E.2d at 163 n. 5, but found it irrelevant because there, as in the case before us, there was no "property damage." If the insuring clause does not extend coverage, "one need look no further." Amerisure, 818 N.E.2d at 1005 (citing DeZutti, 408 N.E.2d at 1278 ). . | 3 | 5 |
Powerine Oil Co., Inc. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2012The coverage clauses at issue in Powerine II, however, specifically included coverage for “damages, direct or consequential and expenses ....[,]” which led the Court to conclude that “the addition of the term ‘expenses’ in the central insuring clause of these excess/umbrella policies extends coverage beyond the limitation imposed were the term ‘damages’ used alone, and thereby enlarges the scope of coverage beyond ‘money ordered by a court.’” Id. at 602 (emphasis in Powerine II). 2012The coverage clauses at issue in Powerine II, however, specifically included coverage for "damages, direct or consequential and expenses .... [,]” which led the Court to conclude that "the addition of the term ‘expenses’ in the central insuring clause of these excess/umbrella policies extends coverage beyond the limitation imposed were the term 'damages’ used alone, and thereby enlarges the scope of coverage beyond 'money ordered by a court.’ ” Id. at 602 (emphasis in Powerine II). | 2 | 2 |
Amerisure, Inc. v. Wurster Const. Co., Inc.green2 sentences2009Thompson we explicitly recognized the 1986 change in language, 686 N.E.2d at 163 n. 5, but found it irrelevant because there, as in the case before us, there was no "property damage." If the insuring clause does not extend coverage, "one need look no further." Amerisure, 818 N.E.2d at 1005 (citing DeZutti, 408 N.E.2d at 1278 ). . 2009Thompson we explicitly recognized the 1986 change in language, 686 N.E.2d at 163 n. 5, but found it irrelevant because there, as in the case before us, there was no "property damage." If the insuring clause does not extend coverage, "one need look no further." Amerisure, 818 N.E.2d at 1005 (citing DeZutti, 408 N.E.2d at 1278 ). [4] Both Sheehan and MJ offer argument whether MJ negligently failed to procure insurance for Sheehan. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
R.N. Thompson & Associates, Inc. v. Monroe Guaranty Insurance
green
2 sentences2009Thompson we explicitly recognized the 1986 change in language, 686 N.E.2d at 163 n. 5, but found it irrelevant because there, as in the case before us, there was no "property damage." If the insuring clause does not extend coverage, "one need look no further." Amerisure, 818 N.E.2d at 1005 (citing DeZutti, 408 N.E.2d at 1278 ). . 2009Thompson we explicitly recognized the 1986 change in language, 686 N.E.2d at 163 n. 5, but found it irrelevant because there, as in the case before us, there was no "property damage." If the insuring clause does not extend coverage, "one need look no further." Amerisure, 818 N.E.2d at 1005 (citing DeZutti, 408 N.E.2d at 1278 ). [4] Both Sheehan and MJ offer argument whether MJ negligently failed to procure insurance for Sheehan. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Horace Mann Insurance v. Analisa N.
green
1 sentence1998Id. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Carolina Mills Distributing Co. v. World Fire & Marine Ins.
green
1 sentence1979This interpretation is consonant with the language of the exception which undertook to relieve the defendant from liability in cases of overflow, whether by floods, by inundation, by backing up of sewers or drains, or by the influx of tide water, rising or surface waters.” 75 F.Supp. at 608 . *245 And in Aetna Fire Underwriters Ins. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Interstate Business Men's Acc. Ass'n of Des Moines v. Lester
green
2 sentences1938Interstate Business Men’s Acc. Assn. v. Lester (1919), 257 Fed. 225 , 168 C. 1938Interstate Business Men’s Acc. Assn. v. Lester (1919), 257 Fed. 225 , 168 C. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
O'Beirne v. . Bullis
neutral
1 sentence1925Supp. 513 , 158 N. Y. 723 , 53 N. E. 1123 , the New York Supreme Court had before it an action on an accident insurance policy, the insuring clause of which was in language the same as that of the policy in the case at bar. | 1 | 1925–1925 |
McFadden v. . Campbell
neutral
1 sentence1925Supp. 513 , 158 N. Y. 723 , 53 N. E. 1123 , the New York Supreme Court had before it an action on an accident insurance policy, the insuring clause of which was in language the same as that of the policy in the case at bar. | 1 | 1925–1925 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.