Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The Indiana Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases on April 24, one concerning grandparent visitation and the other involving a settlement following a motor vehicle accident.
Arguments will begin at 9 a.m. in the case of Jennifer M. O’Connell v. Donna S. Clay, 25S-MI-034. It centers on a child visitation and custody dispute between a mother (O’Connell) and the child’s alleged paternal grandmother (Clay).
According to court documents, the two parties filed an order in 2018 agreeing to the child’s paternity and grandparent visitation. In 2023, Clay petitioned for custody of the child, and O’Connell moved for relief from the agreed order that had been established years prior.
The Porter Superior Court denied both Clay’s petition and O’Connell’s motion to dismiss the case.
O’Connell appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court’s decision denying O’Connell’s motion for relief, saying Clay lacked standing to file for grandparent visitation. According to the court, Clay lacked standing because paternity of the child had never been established.
At 10 a.m., the high court will hear Bradley Baldwin, As Assignee of Tommi C. Hummel and Travor Hummel, et al. v. The Standard Fire Insurance Company, et al., 25S-CT-033.
According to court documents, Baldwin sued Hummel, Hopkins, and McCarty following a June 2018 motor vehicle accident that left Baldwin seriously injured.
The Hummels’ insurer, Standard Fire Insurance, rejected Baldwin’s settlement demand on the Hummels’ behalf and interpleaded the full policy limits for the trial court to distribute amongst all claimants.
The Hummels and McCarty settled with Baldwin, without Standard Fire’s agreement, and Baldwin sued the insurer for claims the Hummels and McCarty assigned to him.
The Marshall Circuit Court denied Baldwin’s summary judgment motion and granted Standard Fire’s motion.
The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, affirming the trial court’s entry of summary judgment for Standard Fire on Baldwin’s claims assigned by both the Hummels and McCarty. The court also affirmed the trial court’s denial of Baldwin’s motions for summary judgment.
However, the court reversed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment for Standard Fire on Baldwin’s claim that the insurer breached its “obligation to exercise good faith and fair dealing toward the Hummels” and his claim that Standard Fire acted in bad faith toward the Hummels.
The supreme court granted both parties’ petitions to transfer.
The April 24 oral arguments can be watched online and in person.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.