Plaintiff was divested of standing to pursue his action while his bankruptcy was pending, but the bankruptcy’s dismissal before the trial court ruled on either party’s motion for summary judgment returned ownership of the action to him and plaintiff then had standing to pursue the action.
Civil
Robertson v. B.O., No. 49A04-1009-CT-528, ___ N.E.2d ___, (Ind. Ct. App., May 23, 2011)
The Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund can introduce evidence concerning the existence and compensable nature of plaintiff’s damages after the plaintiff entered into a settlement with the healthcare provider settling the claim of medical malpractice.
French v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 18A02-1005-PL-489, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 26, 2011)
In a real estate insurance context, even if a homeowner conceals or fails to disclose the true value or nature of his home, failure to disclose true value will not give rise to a rescission claim; insurance companies are in a better position to accurately ascertain the value of a home than most homeowners and if they don’t ascertain the value of the home, they do so at their own peril.
CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Barabas, No. 48A04-1004-CC-232, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 17, 2011)
“Mortgagee” Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) was a “mere nominee” and “bare legal title” holder without interest in the property separate from that of the original lender Irwin, and as mortgage provided for notices only to Irwin the lender, and not to MERS, MERS’s assignee Citimortgage was not entitled to have default in the foreclosure of another mortgage vacated on the basis only Irwin and not MERS received foreclosure notice.
Pfenning v. Lineman, No. 27S02-1006-CV-331, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 18, 2011)
“ We reject the concept that a participant in a sporting event owes no duty of care to protect others from inherent risks of the sport but adopt instead the view that summary judgment is proper due to the absence of breach of duty when the conduct of a sports participant is within the range of ordinary behavior of participants in the sport and therefore reasonable as a matter of law.”