Decedent was covered by insurance policy as a “resident relative” because she lived with her parents, and her parents did not need to notify insurance company of her status because she was not an “operator” living within their household. Additionally, the insurance policy’s anti-stacking provision did not limit an insured’s ability to recover under multiple UIM policies and that the policy’s offset provision reduces only the payments made on behalf of those persons directly liable for the injury.
Civil
Riddle v. Cress, No. 20S-PL-573, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 2, 2020).
A trial court will not be found to have abused its discretion in setting aside a default judgment “so long as there exists even slight evidence of excusable neglect.” Because of this deferential standard of review, the trial court’s decision to set aside default judgment was upheld.
W.M. v. H.T., No. 20A-AD-403, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 5, 2020).
In an adoption, the trial court must make specific findings as required by Ind. Code § 31-19-9-8(a) if it finds that the father’s consent is not needed.
Humphrey v. Tuck, No. 20S-CT-548, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 8, 2020).
Trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving the failure-to-mitigate instruction; only a scintilla of evidence is necessary to support the giving of the instruction.
Singh v. Singh, No. 20A-CT-959, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 8, 2020).
Temple had a duty to protect its attendees when it had notice of present and specific circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to recognize the risk of an imminent criminal act, and had reason to recognize the probability or likelihood of looming harm on a special day of celebration.