Legal Opinion

Pekin Insurance Company v. Jose and Carol Hanquier and Joseph Hall

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided February 6, 2013No. 55A04-1208-CT-401PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

KIRSCH, Judge.

Pekin Insurance Company (“Pekin”) appeals the trial court’s order denying Pe-kin’s motion to correct error. Pekin raises the following restated issue on appeal: whether the trial court erred in failing to enforce the arbitration provision of the Pekin insurance policy as mandated by Indiana Code section 34-57-2-3.

We reverse and remand with instructions.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This case arises from a motor vehicle collision that occurred on March 19, 2008 in Morgan County, Indiana. On that date, Carol Hanquier (“Carol”) was stopped at a traffic signal when a vehicle…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. American States Insurance Co. v. KigerIndiana Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Home Insurance Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1985
  3. Newnam Manufacturing, Inc. v. Transcontinental Insurance Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 2007
  4. Safety National Casualty Co. v. Cinergy Corp.Indiana Court of Appeals · 2005
  5. Daimler Chrysler Corp. v. FranklinIndiana Court of Appeals · 2004

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Spokane Cnty. v. Wash. Dep't of Fish & WildlifeWashington Supreme Court · 2018
  2. RODGERS-ROUZIER v. AMERICAN QUEEN STEAMBOAT OPERATING COMPANY, LLCDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana · 2023
  3. Spokane County v. Dep't of Fish & WildlifeWashington Supreme Court · 2018

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API