Case Title: Aetna Ins. Co. of the Midwest v. Rodriguez

Citation: 517 N.E.2d 386

Docket Number: 75S03-8801-CV-14

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 1988-01-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
517 N.E.2d 386 (1988)
AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST, Appellant,
v.
John RODRIGUEZ; John Rodriguez, d/b/a Atlas Transmission; John Rodriguez, d/b/a Custom Automotive; Shaver Motors, Inc., Associated Adjusters and Shaver Motors, Inc., Appellees.
No. 75S03-8801-CV-14.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
January 6, 1988.
Rehearing Denied March 10, 1988.
Charles T. Jennings, Donna H. Fisher, Jennings, Maas & Stickney, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Clyde D. Compton, Bonnie C. Coleman, Hodges, Davis, Gruenberg, Compton & Sayers, P.C., Merrillville, for appellees.
GIVAN, Justice.
On August 28, 1986, the Court of Appeals rendered the first opinion in this case in which they reversed the decision of the trial court. Aetna v. Rodriguez (1986), Ind. App., 496 N.E.2d 1321. On March 12, 1987, the Court of Appeals, in an opinion on rehearing, affirmed the decision of the trial court. Aetna v. Rodriguez (1987), Ind. App., 504 N.E.2d 1030.
In the latter opinion, the Court of Appeals relied upon the case of Skendzel v. Marshall (1973), 261 Ind. 226, 301 N.E.2d 641 for the proposition that a conditional sale vendor should be treated as a mortgagee. Although the Court of Appeals quoted at length from Judge McLaughlin's trial court judgment, for the sake of understanding this opinion, we will repeat that quotation here:
It is our view that Judge McLaughlin is correct in his observations. We quote his judgment here because we feel we cannot improve upon his language.
The first opinion written by the Court of Appeals was in error in reversing Judge *388 McLaughlin, and the second opinion written by the Court of Appeals is in error in applying the Skendzel case. As Judge McLaughlin points out, this is not a case of a conditional sales contract. The property transaction was a purchase secured by a mortgage. The fact that Aetna's agent did not ascertain the true situation is Aetna's responsibility.
In its original opinion, the Court of Appeals correctly observed that in Indiana when a broker makes application for insurance and the insurance policy is issued, the broker is the agent of the insurer and can bind it within the scope of his authority. They cited Indiana Insurance Company v. Hartwell (1889), 123 Ind. 177, 24 N.E. 100 and other cases.
The March 12, 1987, decision of the Court of Appeals is set aside and the trial court is affirmed.
SHEPARD, C.J., and DeBRULER, PIVARNIK and DICKSON, JJ., concur.