Idan (John) Filip and Valaria Filip v. Carrie Block and 1st Choice Insurance Agency

Summary

The Indiana Supreme Court addressed how parties must designate evidence under Indiana Trial Rule 56(C), holding that designations may appear in various filings but must be consistent and sufficiently specific. The court also held that a negligence claim against an insurance agent for procuring inadequate coverage generally accrues when the coverage deficiency was or should have been discoverable through ordinary diligence. Summary judgment for the defendants was affirmed, except that the evidence created a factual issue concerning alleged representations about coverage for nonbusiness personal property; the court nevertheless affirmed the judgment overall.

Holdings

1. Trial Rule 56(C) does not mandate a particular form or filing for designating summary-judgment evidence. A designation may appear in a motion, supporting or opposing memorandum, separate filing, or appendix, but it must clearly identify the material relied upon and the entire designation must be in one place.
2. When a party designates both an entire document or set of pages and narrower lines or text, the court may limit that party to the more specific designation. But an opposing party may rely on the broader designation made by the designating party, and the designating party may not later use its narrower memorandum designation to prevent reliance on the remainder of pages identified in its motion.
3. A negligence claim against an insurance agent for procuring incorrect or inadequate coverage accrues when the insured knew or, through ordinary diligence, could have discovered the coverage problem and resulting injury. If the problem was discoverable when coverage began, the limitations period begins at or shortly after the start of coverage, not necessarily when a loss occurs or a claim is denied.
4. Reasonable reliance on an insurance agent's representations may override an insured's duty to read the policy and may postpone accrual of a negligence claim concerning the represented coverage. Here, the evidence created a material factual issue as to the claim for nonbusiness personal-property coverage, so summary judgment could not be sustained on limitations grounds as to that claim.
5. Absent a special relationship, an insurance agent's general duty of reasonable care does not include advising an insured about the adequacy of coverage limits, replacement value, or the availability of alternative forms of coverage. An agent may nevertheless assume a duty to advise through particular representations or conduct creating a special relationship.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Indiana Trial Rule 56(C) requires a particular form or location for designating evidence supporting or opposing summary judgment.
2. Whether a party may rely on pages identified in an opposing party's motion when the opposing party later specifies narrower lines or paragraphs in a memorandum.
3. When the two-year statute of limitations begins to run on a negligence claim against an insurance agent for procuring inadequate or incorrect coverage.
4. Whether reasonable reliance on an insurance agent's representations can toll or postpone the limitations period and create a material factual issue concerning coverage of nonbusiness personal property.
5. Whether an insurance agent owes a general duty to advise an insured about the adequacy or availability of coverage absent a special relationship.

Disposition

affirmed