Summary
The Indiana Supreme Court grants the Insurance Commissioner’s petition for rehearing concerning an inconsistency in the Court’s prior opinion. The Court deletes the first clause of footnote three, which had summarily affirmed a Court of Appeals determination that the Commissioner’s hearing order was untimely and void, and affirms the original opinion in all other respects.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court should grant rehearing because its prior summary affirmance of the Court of Appeals' statements that the Commissioner's hearing order was untimely and void conflicted with its judgment reversing the trial court for failing to dismiss First American's petition for lack of an agency record.
- Whether the prior opinion should otherwise remain affirmed.
Holdings
- The Court granted rehearing and deleted the first clause of footnote three, which had summarily affirmed the portion of the Court of Appeals opinion declaring the Commissioner's hearing order untimely and void.
- In all other respects, the original opinion was affirmed.
Key quotations
“We agree and therefore grant rehearing to delete the first clause of footnote three. In all other respects the original opinion is affirmed.” (at 2)
Factual background
First American sought judicial review of an Indiana Department of Insurance order but did not file the agency record as required by the Administrative Orders and Procedures Act. Instead, it filed papers supporting its contention that the agency order was void. The Commissioner moved to dismiss for lack of an agency record, but the trial court denied the motion.
Procedural history
First American sought judicial review of an agency order but did not file the agency record required by the Administrative Orders and Procedures Act. The Marion Superior Court denied the Commissioner's motion to dismiss, and the Court of Appeals affirmed in part while declaring the agency order untimely and void. On transfer, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed based on the missing agency record and summarily affirmed other portions of the Court of Appeals opinion. On rehearing, the Supreme Court concluded that its summary affirmance of the order's timeliness and validity was inconsistent with its judgment and deleted that clause from footnote three, affirming the original opinion in all other respects.