Glover v. Allstate Property & Casualty Ins. Co., No. 20S-CT-23, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 8, 2020).

Decedent was covered by insurance policy as a “resident relative” because she lived with her parents, and her parents did not need to notify insurance company of her status because she was not an “operator” living within their household. Additionally, the insurance policy’s anti-stacking provision did not limit an insured’s ability to recover under multiple UIM policies and that the policy’s offset provision reduces only the payments made on behalf of those persons directly liable for the injury.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Humphrey v. Tuck, No. 20S-CT-548, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 8, 2020).

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving the failure-to-mitigate instruction; only a scintilla of evidence is necessary to support the giving of the instruction.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Clark v. Mattar, No. 20S-CT-109, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., July 9, 2020).

When juror stated he did not want to serve as a juror, had a favorable impression of doctors, and stated repeatedly that he could not and would not be able to assess non-economic damages, he should have been struck for cause; a new trial is appropriate.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Hardin v. State, No. 20S-CR-418, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jun. 23, 2020).

Based on the high degree of law enforcement concern and moderate law-enforcement needs, both the Fourth Amendment and the Indiana Constitution, permit police, armed with a warrant to search a home, to search a vehicle located in the home’s curtilage when officers possess knowledge that the vehicle is either actually owned or under the control and dominion of the premises owner or resident or, alternatively, those vehicles which appear, based on objectively reasonable indicia present at the time of the search, to be so controlled.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion

Seo v. State, No. 18S-CR-595, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jun. 23, 2020).

Even if a search warrant has been issued, forcing a person to unlock, and therefore disclose that contents of their cellphone, violates the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Read Case Clip or Read Full Opinion