“[T]he Tort Prejudgment Interest Statute abrogates and supplants the common law prejudgment interest rules in cases covered by the statute.”
Inman v. State Farm Auto. Mut. Ins. Co., No. 41S01-1108-CT-515, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Dec. 12, 2012).
The Tort Prejudgment Interest Statute applies to an action by an insured against an insurer to recover benefits under the insured’s underinsured motorist (“UIM”) policy, and prejudgment interest can be awarded in excess of the policy limits set forth in an insured’s UIM policy.
Teague v. State, No. 89A01-1202-CR-86, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 5, 2012).
Holds under the facts in this case that “a 911 recording that involves statements by a caller that were relayed from a victim [were] admissible where the victim had personal knowledge of the underlying incident but the caller did not,” on the basis that the caller’s frame of mind and lack of opportunity to reflect qualified her 911 statements as excited utterances.
Sisson v. State, No. 09A02-1102-CR-199, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 5, 2012).
Presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness was not shown when State refiled recidivist allegations for the retrial after the court had declared a mistrial because the jury could not reach a verdict.
In re Resnover, No. 49A02-1205-MI-364, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 5, 2012).
In an action for a name change, “a petitioner must submit with the petition for a name change the documents requested in I.C. § 34-28-2-2.5—including a driver’s license number or identification card number—if applicable…. [A]lthough we have decided that the language of subsection 2.5 does not carry a mandate, but rather a directory intent, the trial court is still obliged to discern the absence of a fraudulent purpose prior to granting a petitioner’s name change.”