As Jerry Padgett and I discussed in our commentary, “Causation as a case-dispositive issue”
(Indiana Lawyer, Oct. 14, 2009), the Indiana Court of Appeals has held in favor of summary judgment for defendants
in instances in which the plaintiff’s negligence clearly intervened whatever fault may have been assigned to the defendant.
Why must a defendant wait until the deposition of a plaintiff’s treating physician to discover the doctor’s opinions on injury causation, the plaintiff’s prognosis, or the permanency of the plaintiff’s injury?
Declaratory judgment actions in which policyholders seek insurance coverage for historical environmental contamination
under comprehensive general liability policies, umbrella insurance policies, and/or excess insurance policies present complex
legal, factual, and scientific issues to defense practitioners. Often, the alleged contamination at issue took place over
decades. These cases usually involve layers of policies offering potential coverage and significant uncertainty regarding
the potential scope of remediation costs.
OK, the information you are about to read may save your life! Yes, that is correct, and your families, colleagues, and even
your clients will thank you for reading this article.
Parties are waiting for the Supreme Court's decision following arguments in November in a case where a trial court granted and the Court of Appeals affirmed an award for emotional distress above and beyond the capped amount in the Adult Wrongful Death Statute as defined by Indiana Code 34-23-1-2.
The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED") arises when a defendant (1) engages in "extreme and outrageous" conduct that (2) intentionally or recklessly (3) causes (4) sever emotional distress to another.