Preview:

FOR PUBLICATION
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS FIDELITY & CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, TRANSCONTINENTAL INS. CO. AND CONTINENTAL INS. CO.: MARTHA S. HOLLNGSWORTH CANDACE L. SAGE Bingham McHale LLP Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INS. CO. AND INTERNATIONAL INS. CO.: ROBERT T. SANDERS, III Sanders Pianowski, LLP Elkhart, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS NATIONAL UNION FIRE INS. CO. OF PITTSBURGH, PA AND GRANITE STATE INS. CO.: DON G. BLACKMOND Doran Blackmond LLP South Bend, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS AMERICAN EMPLOYERS INS. CO.: WILLIAM G. STONE Stone & Moore, Chtd. Chicago, Illinois ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: THOMAS A. BARNARD THOMAS F. O'GARA Sommer Barnard Attorneys, PC Indianapolis, Indiana JOHN D. ULMER CRAIG M. BUCHE Yoder, Ainlay, Ulmer & Buckingham, LLP Goshen, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
AMERICAN EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY, ) FIDELITY & CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, ) GRANITE STATE INSURANCE COMPANY, ) PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY, ) NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY ) OF PITTSBURGH, PA, INTERNATIONAL ) INSURANCE COMPANY, TRANSCONTINENTAL )

INSURANCE COMPANY, and CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellants-Defendants, vs. COACHMEN INDUSTRIES, INC., and COACHMEN INDUSTRIES OF TEXAS, INC., Appellees-Plaintiffs.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 20A03-0412-CV-567

APPEAL FROM THE ELKHART SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable George W. Biddlecome, Judge Cause No. 20D03-0007-CP-0106

December 14, 2005 OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION

VAIDIK, Judge

Case Summary Defendants--numerous insurance companies--appeal the trial court's granting of Coachmen Industries, Inc. ("Coachmen") and Coachmen Industries of Texas, Inc.'s ("CIT") Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Choice of Law. 1 The dispute at the center of this interlocutory appeal centers upon whether, as advocated by Coachmen, the substantive law of Indiana or whether, as advocated by the defendant insurance companies, the substantive law of Texas should apply. The trial court determined that the

The insurance companies' April 8, 2005, "Motion to Expedite Appeal" pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 21 is hereby denied.

1

2

substantive law of Indiana should apply. Because Indiana is the state with the most intimate contacts--as set forth by Indiana case law and the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts

Download Fidelity and Casualty, et al v. Coachmen Industries, et al.pdf

Indiana Law