Pekin Insurance Company v. Jose and Carol Hanquier and Joseph Hall
Indiana Court of Appeals
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
- American States Insurance Co. v. KigerIndiana Supreme Court · 1996
- Eli Lilly & Co. v. Home Insurance Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1985
- Newnam Manufacturing, Inc. v. Transcontinental Insurance Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 2007
- Safety National Casualty Co. v. Cinergy Corp.Indiana Court of Appeals · 2005
- Daimler Chrysler Corp. v. FranklinIndiana Court of Appeals · 2004
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Spokane Cnty. v. Wash. Dep't of Fish & WildlifeWashington Supreme Court · 2018
- RODGERS-ROUZIER v. AMERICAN QUEEN STEAMBOAT OPERATING COMPANY, LLCDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana · 2023
- Spokane County v. Dep't of Fish & WildlifeWashington Supreme Court · 2018