Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of South Bend v. Century Indemnity Co.green2 sentences2007An adversary might well make a favorable settlement offer to a judgment-proof or financially strapped client in exchange for the assignment of that client's right to bring a malpractice claim against his attorney." Picadilly, 582 N.E.2d at 342-43 . [10] The direct action rule is "well-settled" in Indiana, subject to a limited exception "[w]here the plaintiff is not suing the insurance company to establish that its insured committed a tort against the plaintiff, but rather is suing to establish whether the insurer can deny coverage or whether the insurance policy remained in effect, such suit i 2007The direct action rule is "well-settled” in Indiana, subject to a limited exception "[w]here the plaintiff is not suing the insurance company to establish that its insured committed a tort against the plaintiff, but rather is suing to establish whether the insurer can deny coverage or whether the insurance policy remained in effect, such suit is not a direct action against an insurer.” City of South Bend, 821 N.E.2d at 10 (quotation omitted). . | 4 | 4 |
Wilson v. Continental Casualty Co.green2 sentences2012As we reiterated in Wilson v. Continental Casualty Co., 778 N.E.2d 849, 851 (Ind.Ct.App.2002), “an injured third party does not have the right to bring a direct action against a wrongdoer’s liability insurer.” (Quoting Menefee v. Schwrr, 751 N.E.2d 757, 761 (Ind.Ct.App.2001)). 2012As we reiterated in Wilson v. Continental Casualty Co., 778 N.E.2d 849, 851 (Ind.Ct.App.2002), "an injured third party does not have the right to bring a direct action against a wrongdoer's liability insurer." (Quoting Menefee v. Schurr, 751 N.E.2d 757, 761 (Ind.Ct. | 3 | 3 |
Menefee v. Schurrgreen2 sentences2007Menefee, 751 N.E.2d at 761 n. 2 (noting, in *1027 2001, all but four states followed the direct action rule). 2005Most recently, in Menefee, 751 N.E.2d at 761 , we declined the appellants' invitation to abandon the direct action rule. | 2 | 4 |
Myers v. Deetsgreen1 sentence2014Cf. Myers v. Deets, 968 N.E.2d 299, 303 (Ind.Ct.App.2012) - (determining that a com *69 plaint "sufficiently stated facts that would support a declaratory judgment action" against the insurer and remanding for further proceedings). | 1 | 1 |
Wicker v. McIntoshgreen1 sentence2014Wicker v. McIntosh, 938 N.E.2d 25, 27 (Ind.Ct.App.2010). | 1 | 1 |
Laube v. Campbellgreen1 sentence2007An adversary might well make a favorable settlement offer to a judgment-proof or financially strapped client in exchange for the assignment of that client's right to bring a malpractice claim against his attorney." Picadilly, 582 N.E.2d at 342-43 . [10] The direct action rule is "well-settled" in Indiana, subject to a limited exception "[w]here the plaintiff is not suing the insurance company to establish that its insured committed a tort against the plaintiff, but rather is suing to establish whether the insurer can deny coverage or whether the insurance policy remained in effect, such suit i | 1 | 1 |
Economy Fire & Casualty Co. v. Collinsgreen2 sentences2007An adversary might well make a favorable settlement offer to a judgment-proof or financially strapped client in exchange for the assignment of that client's right to bring a malpractice claim against his attorney." Picadilly, 582 N.E.2d at 342-43 . [10] The direct action rule is "well-settled" in Indiana, subject to a limited exception "[w]here the plaintiff is not suing the insurance company to establish that its insured committed a tort against the plaintiff, but rather is suing to establish whether the insurer can deny coverage or whether the insurance policy remained in effect, such suit i 2007See, e.g., Economy Fire & Casualty Co. v. Collins, 643 N.E.2d 382, 384 (Ind.Ct.App. 1994) (insured's estate' voluntarily entered into assignment agreement with plaintiff, assigning estate's cause of action against insurer, but releasing estate from any future obligation). | 1 | 1 |
Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companiesgreen2 sentences2007Co., 46 Cal.3d 287 , 250 Cal.Rptr. 116 , 758 P.2d 58, 66-68 (Cal.1988) (overruling Royal Globe Ins. 2007Co., 46 Cal.3d 287 , 250 Cal.Rptr. 116 , 758 P.2d 58, 66-68 (Cal.1988) (overruling Royal Globe Ins. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of South Bend v. Century Indemnity Co.
neutral
2 sentences2014Co., 821 N.E.2d 5, 11 (Ind.Ct.App.2005), clarified on reh'g, 824 N.E.2d 794 (Ind.Ct.App.2005), trans. denied. 2012Co., 821 N.E.2d 5,11 (Ind. Ct.App.2005), clarified on reh’g, 824 N.E.2d 794 , trans. denied. | 3 | 2012–2014 |
Bennett v. Slater
green
2 sentences2005The direct action rule in Indiana originated in Bennett v. Slater, 154 Ind.App. 67 , 289 N.E.2d 144 (1972). 2005The direct action rule in Indiana originated in Bennett v. Slater, 154 Ind.App. 67 , 289 N.E.2d 144 (1972). | 2 | 2004–2005 |
Picadilly, Inc. v. Raikos
green
1 sentence2007An adversary might well make a favorable settlement offer to a judgment-proof or financially strapped client in exchange for the assignment of that client's right to bring a malpractice claim against his attorney." Picadilly, 582 N.E.2d at 342-43 . [10] The direct action rule is "well-settled" in Indiana, subject to a limited exception "[w]here the plaintiff is not suing the insurance company to establish that its insured committed a tort against the plaintiff, but rather is suing to establish whether the insurer can deny coverage or whether the insurance policy remained in effect, such suit i | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Bolden v. O'Connor Café of Worcester, Inc.
green
2 sentences2007An adversary might well make a favorable settlement offer to a judgment-proof or financially strapped client in exchange for the assignment of that client's right to bring a malpractice claim against his attorney." Picadilly, 582 N.E.2d at 342-43 . [10] The direct action rule is "well-settled" in Indiana, subject to a limited exception "[w]here the plaintiff is not suing the insurance company to establish that its insured committed a tort against the plaintiff, but rather is suing to establish whether the insurer can deny coverage or whether the insurance policy remained in effect, such suit i 2007An adversary might well make a favorable settlement offer to a judgment-proof or financially strapped client in exchange for the assignment of that client's right to bring a malpractice claim against his attorney." Picadilly, 582 N.E.2d at 342-43 . [10] The direct action rule is "well-settled" in Indiana, subject to a limited exception "[w]here the plaintiff is not suing the insurance company to establish that its insured committed a tort against the plaintiff, but rather is suing to establish whether the insurer can deny coverage or whether the insurance policy remained in effect, such suit i | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.