Myers v. Deets
968 N.E.2d 299
Ind. Ct. App.2012Background
- Myers sued Charles R. Deets III, Edward L. Kennedy, Deets & Kennedy, and Great American Insurance Group for money Myers claims Charles owed from a 2004 criminal matter.
- Charles represented Myers from Sep 1, 2004, to Feb 28, 2005, and Myers paid a $5,000 retainer; Myers alleges Charles did not refund owed funds after firing him.
- The complaint alleged Charles and Edward were partners and that Great American insured Charles and the law firm, making them liable for the debt.
- Great American moved for judgment on the pleadings; Edward and the law firm moved for summary judgment on, among other things, a statute of limitations defense and lack of evidence of partnership.
- The trial court granted both motions; Myers appealed, challenging the judgments on pleadings and on summary judgment.
- The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Great American is entitled to judgment on the pleadings | Myers contends Great American coverage existed and the case could proceed as a declaratory action. | Great American argues there was no coverage and the direct action rule barred relief. | Judgment on pleadings improper; potential declaratory claim survives. |
| Whether Myers can proceed against Edward and the law firm for fraud via summary judgment | Fraud claim timely under six-year statute if based on partnership theory. | Edward and firm show no partnership; hearsay evidence cannot create a genuine issue. | Summary judgment in favor of Edward and the law firm affirmed. |
| Whether a direct action against an insurer is barred when coverage may exist | Complaint sufficient to seek relief potentially via declaratory judgment on coverage. | Direct action rule barred against insurer for a tortfeasor; no declaratory relief from pleadings alone. | Ambiguity remained; judgment on pleadings not proper given potential declaratory relief. |
| Whether the complaint adequately alleged insurance coverage to permit declaratory relief | Notice pleading suffices to trigger declaratory relief considerations. | Policy dates/exclusions not established by pleadings; essential for coverage. | Complaint sufficient to seek declaratory relief; remand for further proceedings contemplated. |
| Whether evidence considered at summary judgment was admissible | Myers offered sworn statements that could show partnership. | Hearsay and inadmissible evidence cannot create a genuine issue. | Hearsay in opposition not sufficient to create fact issue; summary judgment upheld for Edward and law firm. |
Key Cases Cited
- Murray v. City of Lawrenceburg, 925 N.E.2d 728 (Ind. 2010) (Rule 12(C) standard; face of complaint governs)
- Midwest Psychological Center, Inc. v. Indiana Dept. of Admin., 959 N.E.2d 896 (Ind.Ct.App. 2011) (admissions in motion for judgment on pleadings affectability)
- ARC Constr. Mgmt., LLC v. Zelenak, 962 N.E.2d 692 (Ind.Ct.App. 2012) (notice pleading permits broad theory pleading)
- Wilson v. Continental Casualty Co., 778 N.E.2d 849 (Ind.Ct.App. 2002) (injured third party cannot directly sue insurer for tort)
- Community Action of Greater Indianapolis, Inc. v. Indiana Farmers Mut. Insurance Co., 708 N.E.2d 882 (Ind.Ct.App. 1999) (injured insured's interest can support declaratory judgment standing)
- Bankers Trust Co. v. Old Republic Ins. Co., 959 F.2d 677 (7th Cir. 1992) (cited for direct action discussion)
- City of Clinton v. Goldner, 885 N.E.2d 67 (Ind.Ct.App. 2008) (notice pleading concept)