• Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer
  • Categories
    • Civil
    • Criminal
    • Juvenile
  • Courts
    • Supreme
    • Appeals
    • Tax
    • SCOTUS
    • 7th Circuit
  • Judges

Case Clips

Published by the Indiana Office of Court Services

Messmer v. KDK Financial Svcs., Inc., No. 53A01-1701-PL-139, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 14, 2017).

September 18, 2017 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Riley

Riley, J.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant-Plaintiff, Evelyn Messmer (Messmer), appeals the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Appellees-Defendants, KDK Financial Services, Inc. (KDK Financial) and Fred Kern (Kern), Individually (collectively, Appellees).[Footnote omitted.]
We affirm.
….
Messmer now attempts to circumvent the statute of limitations on the Allianz policies by contending that its application was tolled by the continuous representation theory….Without citing to any precedents, Messmer now advocates to expand the doctrine to the financial services sector in general and to allegations based in fraud.
….
Similarly here, Messmer fails to cite any case law persuading us to expand the continuous representation doctrine not only to brokers of financial services and fixed annuities, but also, most importantly, to the realm of fraud allegations. In the more than fifty years of the doctrine’s existence, 3 no single state has extended the doctrine as Messmer advocates. The rationale of the application of the continuous representation doctrine in negligence claims—where a client allows an attorney or accountant to correct a good faith mistake without losing the client’s confidence—is simply incompatible with fraud allegations. “Certainly, once the client discovers the attorney’s fraud, it is not reasonable to expect the client to continue to maintain confidence in the professional’s good faith and the client should be, as are all other victims of fraud, required to investigate and access the facts.” Endervelt v. Slade, 618 N.Y.S.2d 520, 525 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1994). Under the circumstances of this case, we decline Messmer’s request to expand the continuous representation doctrine.
….
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the continuing representation doctrine is not applicable to financial advisors or fraud allegations; and no genuine issue of material fact exists establishing that Appellees fraudulently misrepresented the surrender of an insurance annuity.
Affirmed.
Robb, J. and Pyle, J. concur

Read the full opinion

If the link to the opinion in this case isn’t available above, you can search for it at public.courts.in.gov/decisions

Footer

About

Case Clips is a weekly publication of the Indiana Office of Court Services featuring appellate opinions curated by IOCS staff for Indiana judges.

Subscribe
  • Flickr
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Archive

Copyright © 2025 · Indiana Office of Court Services · courts.in.gov/iocs