On April 21, Governor Eric Holcomb signed into law an enactment of the General Assembly that Secretary of State Connie Lawson called “the most farreaching revision of Indiana business laws in more than two decades.” The new act consolidates in a single place in the Indiana Code and harmonizes certain administrative provisions and provisions governing transactions that had previously been contained in five different business entity statutes. Although the new law does not bring about much substantive change, it contains an unprecedented amount of procedural simplification.
Is an Uber driver an employee of Uber? Most scholarship about the so-called on-demand or gig economy has focused on whether individuals providing services via platforms, such as Uber, Lyft, Task Rabbit, and Instacart, are employees under current law or should be protected to the same degree as employees are protected under current law.
Questions abound, but judicial assignment of a bad faith claim may provide a remedy to the injured third party when the tortfeasor is unwilling or unable to assign his or her rights and claims against an insurer.
by Allison Skimehorn, 2L Note Candidate Business courts may have gotten their start over 220 years ago in […]
by Charles B. Daugherty
Easter & Cavosie
10455 N. College Ave.
Indianapolis, IN 46280
For centuries, public entities have employed competitive bidding to form construction contracts for public projects. Public entities often prefer competitive sealed bidding because it promotes both the lowest and best price, and fair and open competition among all citizens. Indeed, the Indiana General Assembly enacted Indiana’s competitive bidding statute “to safeguard the public against fraud, favoritism, graft, extravagance, improvidence and corruption, and to insure honest competition for the best work or supplies at the lowest reasonable cost.”  That said, the competitive bidding system has faults. Owners sometimes use pre-bid arrangements and procedures to address perceived flaws in the competitive bidding process. Labor issues have been the subject of such pre-bid arrangements and procedures.
The ability of a policyholder to recover pre-tender costs is an evolving area of insurance coverage law. In Dreaded, Inc. v. St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company, the Indiana Supreme Court held that, under the facts of that case, a policyholder could not recover the legal expenses it incurred defending itself from a claim asserted by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (“IDEM”) prior to giving notice of or tendering the claim to its insurer. . And while Dreaded was limited to the facts of that case, the Indiana Court of Appeals in Travelers Insurance Company v. Maplehurst Farms, Inc. interpreted Dreaded to mean that pre-tender costs are simply not recoverable. . The courts’ decisions in Dreaded and Maplehurst rested, in part, on two grounds: (1) an insurer’s duty to defend its policyholder does not arise until the policyholder provides notice of the claim;  and (2) the insurance policy provision requiring a policyholder to give notice of a claim to the insurer is a condition precedent to coverage. .
Indiana courts should reconsider the holdings in Dreaded and Maplehurst. . These holdings result in the forfeiture of coverage, which is unfair and disfavored under Indiana law,  and ignore the realities of long-tail environmental claims. . To begin, Dreaded’s explanation of the duty to defend is incomplete. An insurer’s duty to defend its policyholder is not triggered by notice of the claim, but rather by the existence of a potentially covered claim. .
by Lara Langeneckert
Deputy Solicitor General
Office of the Indiana Attorney General
Imagine you are a successful widget manufacturer, and you have just expanded your business by purchasing another widget company called Acme. In the sale, you received all of Acme’s corporate assets, including its commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurance policy  from Flanders Insurance. You are all set to begin producing more widgets than ever before when a lawsuit stops you in your tracks: Apparently, the day before you bought Acme, an Acme widget exploded and injured three people. Those people are now suing you, Acme’s successor-in-interest, to recover for their personal injuries.
A bad situation, to be sure, but you’re not too worried. After all, you have Acme’s CGL policy, so Flanders has to defend and indemnify you against this lawsuit, right? To give a classic lawyer answer: it depends —mostly upon what jurisdiction you happen to be in. And if you are in Indiana, you are probably out of luck. This Article discusses the development of the law in this area, with a specific focus on Indiana. Specifically, this Article addresses two ways corporate policyholders can protect themselves both before and after a sale.