Preview:

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS Irwin B. Levin Scott D. Gilchrist Eric S. Pavlack Indianapolis, Indiana James Keller Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Karl L. Mulvaney Nana Quay-Smith Candace L. Sage Indianapolis, Indiana Brent W. Huber Robert L. Gauss Brian J. Paul Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR AMICI CURIAE INDIANA INSURANCE INSTITUTE, PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANIES, AND AMERICAN INSURANCE ASSOCIATION Robert B. Clemens George T. Patton, Jr. Kathleen I. Hart Indianapolis, Indiana

James H. Young Indianapolis, Indiana

____________________________________________________________________________

In the

Indiana Supreme Court
_________________________________ No. 49S02-0501-CV-3 CHRISTINA M. ALLGOOD, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,

Appellants (Plaintiffs below), v. MERIDIAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee (Defendant below). _________________________________ Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, No. 49D10-0301-PL-171 The Honorable David Dreyer, Judge _________________________________ On Petition To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 49A02-0307-CV-580 _________________________________

October 27, 2005 Boehm, Justice. We hold that an insurance policy that provides coverage for loss limited to the lesser of the actual cash value or the amount necessary to repair or replace the property with other property of like kind and quality does not obligate the insurer to compensate for diminution in value of the property after adequate repairs have been made. Factual and Procedural Background Cynthia Allgood's automobile was damaged while insured by Meridian Security Insurance Company. The record does not reveal the cause of the damage, but Meridian paid the cost of repairs to Allgood's vehicle under its collision coverage. Meridian did not compensate Allgood for any diminution in value of the repaired car as a result of its having been damaged. Allgood initiated a class action seeking damages and a declaration that diminution in value was compensable under the collision coverage of Meridian's automobile policy. 1 Meridian moved to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that the policy provided for costs of repair or replacement of the car but not for reimbursement of any decline in its value. Allgood responded with a motion for partial summary judgment, asking the court to hold that Meridian was obligated to pay for diminution in value of a damaged vehicle in addition to paying for its repair. The trial court found that Allgood's policy "is not ambiguous, and diminished value is not included as a `loss.'" Accordingly, the trial court dismissed Allgood's complaint for failure to state a claim and denied her motion for partial summary judgment. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the policy required payment for diminished value. Allgood v. Meridian Sec. Ins. Co., 807 N.E.2d 131 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). The Court of Appeals reaffirmed that deci1

This suit was originally filed in Marion Superior Court as a class action by other named plaintiffs against Allstate Property & Casualty and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. Two weeks later, Allgood joined as a plaintiff, adding Meridian as a defendant and seeking to expand the class to include herself and all other insureds of Meridian. Twenty days later, State Farm removed the entire case to federal district court. The claim against State Farm remained in federal court, but the claims against Allstate and Meridian were remanded to state court. Subsequently, the claim against Allstate was again removed to federal court, and only Allgood's case remained in state court.

2

sion in all respects in Allgood v. Meridian Sec. Ins. Co., 812 N.E.2d 1065 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). This Court granted transfer. Allgood v. Meridian Sec. Ins. Co., 831 N.E.2d 733 (Ind. 2005). Liability for Diminution in Value Allgood argues that Meridian's agreement to indemnify her for her loss was an agreement to make her whole. Otherwise stated, she contends that unless a repair will restore the fair market value of the vehicle to its pre-crash level, Meridian is obligated to pay for the decline in market value after the repair to fully indemnify her loss. Allgood is correct that under common law tort doctrines, the measure of damages recoverable from a tortfeasor is generally adequate compensation for the loss sustained. She is also correct that under Indiana law that measure of damages includes diminution in value. Dado v. Jeeninga, 743 N.E.2d 291, 294-95 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001); Wiese-GMC, Inc. v. Wells, 626 N.E.2d 595, 598 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993), trans. denied; Restatement (Second) of Torts

Download Christina M. Allgood, Individually and on behalf of all others similarily situat

Indiana Law