6 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1890–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Atkinson v. P & G-Clairol, Inc.green2 sentences2015Whereas a breach of warranty claim that is based on contract may be raised under the UCC independently of the Act, a warranty claim that sounds in tort is “redundant with strict liability claims under the [Act].” Atkinson v. P&G-Clairol, Inc., 813 F. Supp. 2d 1021, 1024 (N.D. 2015Whereas a breach of warranty claim that is based on contract may be raised under the UCC independently of the Act, a warranty claim that sounds in tort is “redundant with strict liability claims under the [Act].” Atkinson v. P & G-Clairol, Inc., 813 F.Supp.2d 1021, 1024 (N.D.Ind.2011). | 1 | 1 |
Colgan v. Agway, Inc.green2 sentences1999In Colgan v. Agway, Inc., 150 Vt. 373 , 553 A.2d 143, 146 (1988), the court addressed a situation like the one before us where a provision which purported to release a party from its own negligence was located outside of a release and waiver of Lability clause: Moreover, the purported release is located at the very end of a warranty clause of a performance contract which sets forth with particularity the parties’ respective performance obligations in separate paragraphs. 1999In Colgan v. Agway, Inc., 150 Vt. 373 , 553 A.2d 143, 146 (1988), the court addressed a situation like the one before us where a provision which purported to release a party from its own negligence was located outside of a release and waiver of Lability clause: Moreover, the purported release is located at the very end of a warranty clause of a performance contract which sets forth with particularity the parties’ respective performance obligations in separate paragraphs. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
National Benefit Ass'n v. Grauman
green
2 sentences1902National Benefit Assn. v. Grauman, 107 Ind. 288 ; Piedmont, etc., Ins. 1890National Benefit Ass’n v. Grauman, 107 Ind. 288 ; Piedmont, etc., Life Ins. | 2 | 1890–1902 |
prod.liab.rep. (Cch) P 14,453 Cristobal Leon and Maria Leon v. Caterpillar Industrial, Incorporated
green
1 sentence2017Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1608-PL-1860 | June 2, 2017 Page 13 of 20 copies of these documents from defendants in discovery and if [it] obtains the actual documents, [it] will promptly provide as attachment [sic] to the Complaint at that time.” Id. [24] Navistar directs us to Indiana Trial Rule 9.2(A), which provides, in part, “When any pleading allowed by these rules is founded on a written instrument, the original, or a copy thereof, must be included in or filed with the pleading.” Navistar contends that failure to comply with Rule 9.2(A) “means dismissal of the | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Snodgrass v. Baize
green
1 sentence1982Applying this principle, this Court in Snodgrass v. Baize, (1980) Ind.App., 409 N.E.2d 645 (opinion on rehearing), established the elements and burden of proof in a case where a tort claimant had recovered a judgment against an insured tortfeasor, and then sought to satisfy the judgment in proceedings supplemental through a recovery on the tort-feasor’s insurance policy. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
State Farm Life Ins. Co. v. SPIDEL ET UX.
green
2 sentences1982With respect to which party generally carries the burden of proof regarding an exception to an insurance policy, our Supreme Court has stated “[i]f the loss is within a warranty or exception, it is a matter of defence, [sic] which must be pleaded affirmatively by the defendant.” Louisville Underwriters v. Durland, (1890) 123 Ind. 544, 547 , 24 N.E. 221, 222 ; e.g, State Farm Life Insurance Co. v. Spidel, (1964) 246 Ind. 458 , 202 N.E.2d 886 (the insurer has the burden of proving the affirmative defense of suicide being a risk not covered under a life insurance policy); Red Men’s Fraternal Acci 1982With respect to which party generally carries the burden of proof regarding an exception to an insurance policy, our Supreme Court has stated “[i]f the loss is within a warranty or exception, it is a matter of defence, [sic] which must be pleaded affirmatively by the defendant.” Louisville Underwriters v. Durland, (1890) 123 Ind. 544, 547 , 24 N.E. 221, 222 ; e.g, State Farm Life Insurance Co. v. Spidel, (1964) 246 Ind. 458 , 202 N.E.2d 886 (the insurer has the burden of proving the affirmative defense of suicide being a risk not covered under a life insurance policy); Red Men’s Fraternal Acci | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Louisville Underwriters v. Durland
neutral
2 sentences1982With respect to which party generally carries the burden of proof regarding an exception to an insurance policy, our Supreme Court has stated “[i]f the loss is within a warranty or exception, it is a matter of defence, [sic] which must be pleaded affirmatively by the defendant.” Louisville Underwriters v. Durland, (1890) 123 Ind. 544, 547 , 24 N.E. 221, 222 ; e.g, State Farm Life Insurance Co. v. Spidel, (1964) 246 Ind. 458 , 202 N.E.2d 886 (the insurer has the burden of proving the affirmative defense of suicide being a risk not covered under a life insurance policy); Red Men’s Fraternal Acci 1982With respect to which party generally carries the burden of proof regarding an exception to an insurance policy, our Supreme Court has stated “[i]f the loss is within a warranty or exception, it is a matter of defence, [sic] which must be pleaded affirmatively by the defendant.” Louisville Underwriters v. Durland, (1890) 123 Ind. 544, 547 , 24 N.E. 221, 222 ; e.g, State Farm Life Insurance Co. v. Spidel, (1964) 246 Ind. 458 , 202 N.E.2d 886 (the insurer has the burden of proving the affirmative defense of suicide being a risk not covered under a life insurance policy); Red Men’s Fraternal Acci | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Red Men's Fraternal Accident Ass'n of America v. Rippey
green
2 sentences1982With respect to which party generally carries the burden of proof regarding an exception to an insurance policy, our Supreme Court has stated “[i]f the loss is within a warranty or exception, it is a matter of defence, [sic] which must be pleaded affirmatively by the defendant.” Louisville Underwriters v. Durland, (1890) 123 Ind. 544, 547 , 24 N.E. 221, 222 ; e.g, State Farm Life Insurance Co. v. Spidel, (1964) 246 Ind. 458 , 202 N.E.2d 886 (the insurer has the burden of proving the affirmative defense of suicide being a risk not covered under a life insurance policy); Red Men’s Fraternal Acci 1982With respect to which party generally carries the burden of proof regarding an exception to an insurance policy, our Supreme Court has stated “[i]f the loss is within a warranty or exception, it is a matter of defence, [sic] which must be pleaded affirmatively by the defendant.” Louisville Underwriters v. Durland, (1890) 123 Ind. 544, 547 , 24 N.E. 221, 222 ; e.g, State Farm Life Insurance Co. v. Spidel, (1964) 246 Ind. 458 , 202 N.E.2d 886 (the insurer has the burden of proving the affirmative defense of suicide being a risk not covered under a life insurance policy); Red Men’s Fraternal Acci | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.