Legal Opinion

Querrey & Harrow, Ltd. v. Transcontinental Insurance Co.

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided May 13, 2008No. 45S03-0708-CV-307PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DICKSON, Justice.

Addressing an issue of first impression in Indiana, the Court of Appeals holds that an excess insurer may not bring an action for legal malpractice against the insured’s attorneys. Querrey & Harrow v. Transcontinental Ins. Co., 861 N.E.2d 719 (Ind.Ct.App.2007). We agree and now adopt this opinion as to all issues addressed. Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A)(1).

The principal argument addressed by the Court of Appeals is whether or not to extend the availability of equitable subrogation to excess insurance policy carriers to enable them to sue the attorneys of its insured for legal…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Querrey & Harrow, Ltd. v. Transcontinental Insurance Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 2007

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. WeissColorado Court of Appeals · 2008
  2. McGrath v. Everest National InsuranceDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 2010
  3. Thrower v. AnsonNebraska Supreme Court · 2008
  4. ACE American Insurance v. Sandberg, Phoenix & Von Gontard, PC.District Court, S.D. Illinois · 2012
  5. Municipal Tax Liens, Inc. v. AlexanderIndiana Court of Appeals · 2008

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

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

Powered by the Exa API