Legal Opinion · Dissent

Darst v. Illinois Farmers Insurance

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided September 27, 1999No. 49A02-9809-CV-775Published

1DissentMattingly, Judge

Had Illinois Farmers insured Sloan for only property damage to his vehicle, I could agree with the majority. However, Sloan had additional coverage with Illinois Farmers, including underinsured motorist and medical payment coverage. Because Gaumer’s statement likely had the effect of relieving Illinois Farmers from any financial obligations toward Sloan under those coverages, I believe Gaumer may have had a duty not to misrepresent the information he provided to Sloan. As a result, genuine issues of material fact exist and I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision affirming a…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Erie Insurance v. Hickman Ex Rel. SmithIndiana Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Roe v. North Adams Community School Corp.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1995
  3. Midwest Security Life Insurance v. StroupIndiana Court of Appeals · 1999

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

Powered by the Exa API