Genuine issues of material fact on whether employer should be liable under the theory of respondeat superior precluded summary judgment.
Civil
Schmidt v. Ind. Insurance Co., No. 22S01-1507-PL-412, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 2, 2015).
Even if the applicant was truthful and provided complete information regarding the property to the insurance agent, there is no genuine issue of fact regarding the proximate cause of loss because no dwelling fire insurance policy would have been issued on such information.
Wartell v. Lee, No. 02A03-1503-PL-81, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 7, 2015).
An allegedly defamatory statement related to a person’s trade, profession, office, or occupation is not defamatory per se, but the statement must impute a serious level of misconduct in a way that does not require reference to extrinsic facts for context.
Abernathy v. Gulden, No. 45A03-1503-MI-73, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 30, 2015).
Ind. Code § 9-30-10-4(e), requiring the BMV to use the dates of the offenses rather than the dates of the judgments in determining a person’s status as a HTV, is a procedural amendment which does not violate the ex post facto clauses of the Indiana and United States Constitutions.
Patchett v. Lee, No. 29D01-1305-CT-4116, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 19, 2015).
Evidence of payments made by the Healthy Indiana Plan (“HIP”) to reimburse plaintiff’s medical providers was inadmissible.