Davis v. Shelter Insurance Companies
957 N.E.2d 995
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- Davis and Culver were involved in a January 3, 2008 car accident; Shelter insured Davis, State Farm insured Culver.
- State Farm initially told Davis not to call until treatment ended; Shelter paid Davis’s medical treatment.
- State Farm later processed Davis’s medical payments and closed the subrogation file in June 2008; Davis resumed treatment in late 2008.
- Davis was wrongly informed by Shelter that the statute of limitations was three years; Davis’s claim period ran January 3, 2010.
- State Farm took over the claim in November 2008 and had ongoing contact with Davis; Davis sought to settle in March 2010 and filed suit in June 2010.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for State Farm and Culver; Davis appealed challenging equitable estoppel as a defense to the statute of limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether equitable estoppel defeats the statute of limitations | Davis contends State Farm’s conduct misled her, delaying action. | State Farm argues its conduct did not amount to equitable estoppel and did not induce delay. | Equitable estoppel not available; no sufficient inducement or egregious conduct. |
| Whether the trial court properly treated the motion as summary judgment | Davis argues the motion to dismiss should not have been treated as summary judgment. | State Farm/Culver contend Rule 12(B) conversion was proper due to outside-pleadings in the reply. | Properly treated; record supports summary judgment standard and reasonable opportunity for Rule 56 materials. |
Key Cases Cited
- Paramo v. Edwards, 563 N.E.2d 595 (Ind.1990) (equitable estoppel requires more than mere negotiation; conduct must prevent inquiry or mislead)
- Martin v. Levinson, 409 N.E.2d 1239 (Ind.Ct.App.1980) (equitable estoppel is extraordinary and not available for mere negotiations)
- Little v. Progressive Ins., 783 N.E.2d 307 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (totality of circumstances and reasonable reliance determine estoppel)
- Barnd v. Borst, 431 N.E.2d 161 (Ind.Ct.App.1982) (insurer conduct must be sufficient to impede inquiry or mislead)
- Nesbitt v. Erie Coach Co., 204 A.2d 473 (Pa.1964) (discouraging counsel could support estoppel if proven)
- Bergeron v. Mansour, 152 F.2d 27 (1st Cir.1945) (insurer discouraging counsel can establish estoppel)
- Kleckley v. Northwestern Nat'l. Cas. Co., 526 S.E.2d 218 (S.C.2000) (egregious insurer conduct may trigger estoppel)
- Sumrall v. City of Cypress, 258 Cal. App. 2d 565 (Cal. App. 1968) (promise to settle can estop with misledning or delay)
- Foamcraft, Inc. v. First State Insurance Co., 238 Ill. App. 3d 791 (Ill. App. 1992) (absence of settlement discussions can preclude estoppel unless insurer acted egregiously)