State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Estep

I agree with the majority that under this Court’s precedent in PicadiUy, Inc. v. Raikos, 582 N.E.2d 338 (Ind.1991), Perkins’s legal malpractice claims against his attorney Jerry L. Susong are not assignable. I also agree with the majority’s brief statement that because proceedings supplemental are “merely an extension of the underlying action, the merits of any assigned claim should not be tried in this limited forum.”

I dissent in part because I do not agree with .the majority that State .Farm should have been allowed to intervene in the proceeding supplemental. The Court of Appeals concluded…