Edward W. Najam jr

This case involved a dispute over whether excess liability insurance policies covered an Indiana company's potential liability under federal environmental law for contamination at a Louisiana shipyard Superfund site, stemming from its predecessor's delivery of barges for cleaning. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling that Indiana law governs the policies but reversed its denial of summary judgment to the insurers, holding instead that the policies' watercraft limitation excluded coverage. The court reasoned that the company's CERCLA liability arose directly from its predecessor's ownership of the barges delivered to the site, rather than from the cleaning operations themselves, making the limitation applicable under Indiana law.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involves an interlocutory appeal by the State of Indiana challenging a trial court order that would allow evidence of prior accusations of sexual misconduct and rape made by the complaining witness M.S. against third parties in a prosecution of her uncle, David E. Watson, for four counts of sexual misconduct with a minor and two counts of child exploitation. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's evidentiary ruling and remanded the case. The court reasoned that under Indiana precedent, such prior accusations are admissible only if recanted or demonstrably false, and Watson had not met his burden to show either condition applied based on the record.

criminal lawprocedure

In this negligence case, Rick Lawson rear-ended Cecil McClendon, Jr. at a stoplight while test-driving a vehicle for his employer, MGM Automotive Repair, Inc., causing McClendon a concussion. McClendon, through his guardian, sued Lawson and MGM for damages, with the defendants conceding liability but arguing that his subsequent cognitive decline and need for nursing home care resulted from Alzheimer's rather than the accident. A jury awarded $3.7 million, and the trial court denied the defendants' post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and remittitur. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that sufficient evidence supported the jury's findings on causation and that the damages award was within the range of the evidence presented regarding McClendon's pain, suffering, and lost independence. The court reasoned that medical testimony, witness accounts of behavioral changes, and calculations of past and future care costs justified upholding the verdict.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a breach of contract dispute in which Steven Brown took possession of Chris Guinn's truck and agreed to make monthly payments on it, but stopped payments for three months while retaining possession, resulting in repossession by the lender. Guinn filed a small claims action alleging breach, and after a bench trial the court entered judgment for Guinn. Brown appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion for involuntary dismissal due to the absence of the written contract, in applying estoppel to the contract term, and that the judgment lacked sufficient evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the small claims rules and trial procedure allowed the action to proceed on Brown's admission of the contract, that the evidence supported crediting Guinn's account of the term over Brown's claim of cancellation, and that sufficient proof existed of the contract, breach, and damages.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a customer's lawsuit against a financial advisor, his employer firms, and related entities alleging violations of securities laws, fraud, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty stemming from advice to roll over IRA funds into an annuity in 2006. The trial court denied the defendants' motions to compel arbitration based on account applications the plaintiff had signed in 2003 and 2008. On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the 2003 application incorporated a valid arbitration clause covering disputes arising from the customer agreement, that the plaintiff ratified the agreement by signing the 2008 application, and that all defendants could enforce the clause despite initial production of incorrect agreement versions. The court reasoned that the arbitration provisions in the various customer agreements were materially the same and that the claims fell within their scope.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a shareholder derivative action filed by William T. Carter on behalf of CNO Financial Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, against current and former directors and officers. The plaintiff alleged breaches of fiduciary and good faith duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets, but did not make a pre-suit demand on the board of directors. The defendants moved to dismiss under Delaware Chancery Court Rule 23.1, arguing that the complaint failed to plead particularized facts showing demand futility. The trial court granted the motion, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the allegations did not demonstrate a substantial likelihood of liability for the director defendants or a breach of their duties of good faith and loyalty under Delaware law, including standards from Rales v. Blasband and the company's exculpatory charter provision. The court concluded that pre-suit demand was not excused as futile.

business & regulatoryprocedure