Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
An Indiana trial court correctly granted judgment to an insurance company because evidence showed the company had no special duty to a family following a 2017 accident, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled in an opinion issued Monday.
The Supreme Court also, however, reversed the trial court’s directed verdict for a second insurance company, and remanded for further proceedings.
Christine and Roy Cosme sued Churilla Insurance and the Erie Insurance Exchange for breach of contract, seeking punitive damages after the family was not covered by insurance when they got into a crash.
In February 2017, the Cosmes son, Broyce, was arrested for possessing marijuana. BMV records mistakenly showed Broyce was the driver of the vehicle when he and his friends were arrested and, as a result, suspended Broyce’s license.
His suspended license posed a risk to the family’s insurance policy, who had until Oct. 28 to submit a coverage-exclusion form or lose their policy on Nov. 1.
Instead of signing the exclusion form, Roy planned to have Broyce send paperwork to Churilla Insurance showing the suspension was a mistake.
The family didn’t submit the exclusion form before the October 28 deadline but the BMV reinstated Broyce’s license on October 28. Broyce then provided a receipt to Churilla on October 30 showing he had paid to get his license reinstated.
The following day, the Churilla agent left a voicemail for Roy and Broyce and sent an email to Broyce saying Erie could still cancel their insurance, despite the reinstatement, because the insurance company can cancel a policy if a listed insured has a suspended license at any time.
Neither Roy nor Broyce discovered the agent’s communications until several days after Erie’s cancellation date.
The Cosmes’ insurance policy was cancelled on Nov. 1. On Nov. 4, an uninsured driver rear-ended Roy and Christine, who didn’t know they no longer had insurance until Nov. 6.
On Nov. 13, the Lake Superior Court ordered the BMV to expunge Broyce’s license suspension. The Cosmes submitted the Nov. 4 crash as a claim, but Erie denied coverage because their policy had been cancelled at that time.
The Cosmes alleged a breach of contract against both Erie and Churilla, and a bad-faith claim against Erie alone.
The trial court granted a motion for judgment on the evidence by Erie and Churilla, stating the Cosmes “brought about their own lack-of-coverage injuries” when they didn’t sign the exclusion form before Oct. 28. The court denied the Cosmes’ motion to correct error.
The Cosmes then appealed, challenging the court’s order granting the motions for judgment on the evidence specifically.
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order, holding the Cosmes failed to present evidence to support their claims against Churilla and Erie.
In the Supreme Court’s ruling, they stated a trial court cannot weigh evidence or assess witness credibility to decide whether “sufficient evidence” supports an issue. The high court also noted these are fact-finding functions within the jury’s sole province.
The court holds the trial court erred in granting judgment on the evidence to Erie because the family’s case-in-chief presented sufficient, but conflicting, evidence to prove Erie breached its contract.
Relying on Purcell vs. Old National Bank, 972 N.E.2d 835 (Ind. 2012), the Supreme Court states that only after both sides have rested and a jury returns its verdict can a trial judge assess the evidence as a “thirteenth juror,” citing the Indiana constitution as protecting the rights of parties to have a jury weigh evidence.
All justices concurred in the opinion in Christine Cosme and Roy Cosme v. Debora A. Warfield Clark, Dan Churilla d/b/a Churilla Insurance, and Erie Insurance Exchange, 24S-CT-159.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.