Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A05-1610-PL-2271 | May 11, 2017 Page 1 of 17

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Michael N. Red

John J. Morse

Morse & Bickel, P.C.

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Douglas B. Bates

Neal Bailen

Chelsea Stanley

Stites & Harbison PLLC

Jeffersonville, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Steven J. Svabek, D.O., et al., 

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

Lancet Indemnity Risk 

Retention Group, Inc.,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

May 11, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

41A05-1610-PL-2271

Appeal from the Johnson Superior 

Court

The Honorable Marla K. Clark,

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

41D04-1401-PL-8

Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A05-1610-PL-2271 | May 11, 2017 Page 2 of 17

Statement of the Case

[1] Steven J. Svabek, D.O., appeals the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in 

favor of Lancet Indemnity Risk Retention Group, Inc. (“Lancet”) on Lancet’s

complaint seeking rescission of Svabek’s medical malpractice insurance policy. 

Svabek presents three issues for our review, but we address a single dispositive 

issue, namely, whether the trial court erred when it entered summary judgment 

for Lancet on its claim for rescission of the policy. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] The trial court’s findings set out the relevant facts and procedural history as 

follows:

1. Dr. Svabek is an orthopedic surgeon residing in Boca Raton, 

Florida. Dr. Svabek previously practiced medicine in the State of 

Indiana. (Amended Complaint).

2. Lancet is an insurance company organized under the laws of 

the State of Nevada with its corporate office in Las Vegas, 

Nevada, and its executive office in Tampa, Florida. (Amended 

Complaint).

3. On or about December 7, 2012, and in consideration of a 

premium payment made contemporaneously by Dr. Svabek 

totaling $68,040.00, the parties entered into a policy of 

physician’s professional liability insurance, policy number 

LI09121000182 (the “Policy”).

4. The Effective Date of the policy is December 7, 2012, with a 

Retroactive Date of December 7, 2010. The Policy is a “Tail 

Policy” only with no prospective coverage.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A05-1610-PL-2271 | May 11, 2017 Page 3 of 17

5. The Policy Period is December 7, 2012 through December 7, 

2013. (Lancet’s Ex. A).

6. The Policy only covers an Occurrence on or after December 7, 

2010 [the Retroactive Date] and before December 7, 2012 which 

was first made against Dr. Svabek and reported to Lancet 

between December 7, 2012 and December 7, 2013 [the Policy 

Period]. (Lancet’s Ex. A; Lancet’s Ex. A-1; Lancet’s Ex. A-2).

7. The coverage provided by the Policy is subject to a number of 

exclusions, including the following:

“[Lancet Indemnity is] not obligated to defend or pay any

Damages, judgments, settlements, loss, indemnity or Medical

Payments on account of any Claim:

(a) based on, arising out of, or in any way involving any 

Occurrence, fact, circumstance, or situation:

1. that was the subject of written notice given under 

any prior policy unless such prior policy was one of 

our policies and providing that the Occurrence 

happened subsequent to the Retroactive Date of this 

Policy;

2. that was the subject of any prior or pending written 

demand for monetary damages, administrative or 

arbitration proceeding or civil or criminal litigation 

against any Insured, or the same or substantially the 

same fact, circumstance, or situation underlying

or alleged in the prior matter, which existed prior to 

the initial effective date of the Policy Period;

3. that was reported in the Application or was 

identified in any summary or statement of Claims or 

potential Claims submitted in connection with the 

Application;
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A05-1610-PL-2271 | May 11, 2017 Page 4 of 17

4. that was reported to any other source from which 

payment might be made before the initial effective 

date of the Policy Period of the first policy that we 

issue to you;

5. of which any Insured had knowledge prior to the 

inception of the first insurance policy issued to you 

by [Lancet Indemnity] and continuously renewed by 

[Lancet Indemnity] if such knowledge would cause a 

reasonable person to believe that a Claim might be

made; or

6. arising out of Professional Services rendered prior 

to the Retroactive Date of this Policy.[”]

(Lancet’s Ex. A-1).

8. In entering the contract for the Policy, on December 7, 2012, 

Dr. Svabek completed and submitted an application to Lancet.

In that application, Dr. Svabek confirmed, among other things, 

that he had no known potential or anticipated losses and that no 

prior carrier had declined or refused coverage for a medical 

incident. (Lancet’s Ex. A-5).

9. The Policy states that Lancet relied upon the statements made 

by Dr. Svabek in his application for insurance and that Dr. 

Svabek warrants those statements are true:

“In issuing this Policy, [Lancet Indemnity] relied upon the

statements and representations in the Application. The Insureds

warrant that all such statements and representations are true and

deemed material to the acceptance of the risk or the hazard

assumed by [Lancet Indemnity] under this Policy.[”]

(Lancet’s Ex. A-1).

* * *
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A05-1610-PL-2271 | May 11, 2017 Page 5 of 17

14. Subsequent to entering into the Policy, the following three 

(3) matters (the “Matters”) were brought to the attention of 

Lancet for which Dr. Svabek asserts coverage is owed:

(a) On August 15, 2012, Ms. Robin Sykes and Mr. 

Thomas Williams (“Sykes and Williams”) filed a 

proposed complaint (the “Sykes/Williams Matter”) 

against Dr. Svabek with the Indiana Department of 

Insurance (“IDOI”). In the proposed complaint, 

Sykes and Williams allege harm resulting from 

surgeries performed by Dr. Svabek on or about 

February 16, 2009, March 22, 2010, December 20,

2010, and March 4, 2011. (Lancet’s Ex. D).

(b) On November 30, 2012, Ms. Sharon Pettigrew 

(“Ms. Pettigrew”), as Administratrix of the Estate of 

Mr. John Austin, filed a proposed complaint (the

“Pettigrew Matter”) with the IDOI. In the proposed 

complaint, Ms. Pettigrew alleges harm resulting from 

medical care provided by Dr. Svabek on or about

December 8, 2010. (Lancet’s Ex. I).

(c) On February 5, 2013, Ms. Tamara Nardini (“Ms. 

Nardini”), individually and on behalf of her minor 

son, Matthew Nardini, filed a lawsuit (the “Nardini 

Matter”) against Dr. Svabek in the Morgan County 

Superior Court. Ms. Nardini alleges harm resulting 

from medical care provided by Dr. Svabek on or 

about February 9, 2011 and February 24, 2011.

(Lancet’s Ex. K).

15. On August 28, 2012, the Indiana Patient’s Compensation 

Fund ("PCF") through the IDOI, sent notice of the 

Sykes/Williams Matter to Dr. Svabek. (Lancet’s Ex. E).

16. On November 20, 2012, counsel for Ms. Sykes and Mr. 

Williams sent the Proposed Complaint directly to Evanston 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A05-1610-PL-2271 | May 11, 2017 Page 6 of 17

Insurance, the insurance company that provided a medical 

malpractice policy that covered Dr. Svabek for the period of 

January 12, 2010 until January 12, 2011. (Lancet’s Ex. F-1; 

Lancet’s Ex. F-2).

17. On November 20, 2012, a senior claims examiner with 

Markel Corporation, a company acting as claims manager for 

Evanston Insurance, sent Dr. Svabek the correspondence

and Proposed Complaint that it received from the lawyer 

representing Sykes/Williams. (Lancet’s Ex. F-1).

18. On December 4, 2012, Markel sent correspondence to Dr. 

Svabek advising that no coverage was available under the 

Evanston policy for the Sykes/Williams Proposed Complaint 

because the Evanston policy lapsed on January 12, 2011 and thus

would not cover the Proposed Complaint filed on August 15, 

2012. (Lancet’s Ex. F-3).

19. The Markel December 4, 2012 denial letter was sent to Dr. 

Svabek by certified mail. It was also sent to Dr. Svabek by email 

to svabek.steve@gmail.com. (Id.)

20. Dr. Svabek admits that his email address in 2012 was 

svabek.steve@gmail.com, which is the email address where the 

denial letter was sent. (Lancet’s Ex. G).

21. Markel’s records reflect that the email sent to 

svabek.steve@gmail.com was successfully delivered on 

December 4, 2012. (Lancet’s Ex. F-3).

22. The Markel denial letter was also sent by mail and email to 

Susan Cline, an attorney previously hired by Markel to represent 

Dr. Svabek in a separate claim. (Id.; Lancet’s Ex. F-4).

23. On December 7, 2012, three days after Evanston sent its 

denial of coverage to Dr. Svabek by certified mail and by email, 

Dr. Svabek completed and submitted an application to Lancet for 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A05-1610-PL-2271 | May 11, 2017 Page 7 of 17

medical malpractice insurance coverage. In that application, Dr. 

Svabek confirmed, among other things, that he had no known 

potential or anticipated losses and that no prior carrier had 

declined or refused coverage for a medical incident. (Lancet’s

Ex. A-5).

24. On December 18, 2012, Ms. Sykes and Mr. Williams filed a 

complaint for damages against Dr. Svabek in the Johnson 

Superior Court. (Lancet’s Ex. H).

25. Lancet was put on notice of the claims being asserted by 

Sykes/Williams and retained separate counsel to represent Dr. 

Svabek in the Johnson Superior Court action, subject to a 

reservation of rights. (Lancet’s Ex. A).

* * *

28. The Policy excludes coverage for any claim that was the 

subject of an administrative proceeding, civil litigation or written 

demand for damages which existed prior to the Policy’s Effective 

Date of December 7, 2012. (Lancet’s Ex. A-1).

29. On November 30, 2012, Ms. Pettigrew, as Administratrix of 

Mr. Austin’s Estate, filed a proposed medical malpractice 

complaint against Dr. Svabek with the IDOI under the provisions 

of the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act (the “Pettigrew Proposed

Complaint”). (Lancet’s Ex. I).

30. The Pettigrew Proposed Complaint alleges Dr. Svabek 

rendered medical care and treatment to Mr. Austin from 

December 8, 2010 to January 6, 2011 that fell below the

appropriate standard of care. (Id.).

31. On December 10, 2012, Ms. Pettigrew filed a complaint 

against Dr. Svabek in the Marion Superior Court, under Cause 

No. 49D05-1212-CT-047168. (Lancet’s Ex. J).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A05-1610-PL-2271 | May 11, 2017 Page 8 of 17

32. Lancet was put on notice of Ms. Pettigrew’s lawsuit and 

retained separate counsel to represent Dr. Svabek in the Marion 

County Court action, subject to a reservation of rights. (Lancet’s

Ex. B; Lancet’s Ex. A).

* * *

40. Lancet would have declined to issue the Policy or would 

have offered a policy to Dr. Svabek on much different terms if 

Dr. Svabek had disclosed in his application the existence of the 

Sykes/Williams claim. (Lancet’s Ex. A).

41. On January 24, 2014, Lancet filed three separate complaints 

for declaratory judgment in the Morgan, Marion and Johnson 

County courts asking for a determination as to whether

Lancet owed coverage to Dr. Svabek for malpractice claims 

pending in each of those respective courts. . . .

* * *

45. The three actions were consolidated in the Johnson County 

Superior Court on August 18, 2015.

46. Lancet filed its amended complaint on August 27, 2015. The 

amended complaint seeks a declaration that Lancet is entitled to 

rescind the insurance policy it issued to Dr. Svabek. In the 

alternative, the amended complaint seeks a declaration that Dr. 

Svabek is not entitled to coverage as to the three medical 

malpractice claims.

Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 19-27.

[3] On February 22, 2016, Lancet moved for summary judgment. Following a 

hearing, the trial court concluded in relevant part as follows:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A05-1610-PL-2271 | May 11, 2017 Page 9 of 17

6. Lancet is entitled to rescind the Policy because Lancet relied 

on false and material representations in Dr. Svabek’s insurance 

application. Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Guzorek, 690 N.E.2d 664, 

672 (Ind. 1997) (An insurance policy is “voidable at the

insurance company’s option” if the insurer relies on a “material 

misrepresentation or omission of fact in an insurance

application.”)

7. Insurers “rely on the truthfulness and completeness of the 

information on the application in assessing whether to issue a 

policy and on what terms.” Roe v. Sewell, 128 F.3d 1098,

1103 (7th Cir. 1996); see also Guzorek, 690 N.E.2d at 672 

(rescission “protects the insurer’s right to know the full extent of 

the risk it undertakes when an insurance policy is issued”).

8. Dr. Svabek’s insurance application erroneously stated that no 

prior insurance carrier had refused or declined to issue coverage 

regarding any medical incident or threat of claim. That false 

statement was contained in the “Statement of No Known 

Claims/Losses” that Dr. Svabek completed and submitted to 

Lancet on December 7, 2012.

9. Dr. Svabek’s prior insurance carrier denied coverage to Dr. 

Svabek for the Sykes/Williams claim pursuant to a denial letter 

issued on December 4, 2012.

10. Dr. Svabek’s representation that a prior carrier had not 

previously denied coverage, whether intentional or not, was false. 

Dr. Svabek’s failure to disclose a known claim entitles Lancet to 

rescind the Policy.

11. Dr. Svabek had prior knowledge of the Sykes/Williams 

malpractice claim based on multiple notifications sent to him by 

various means, from the IDOI and his prior insurance carrier. 

Dr. Svabek’s prior knowledge is supported by 1) the letter sent to 

him by the Department of Insurance on August 28, 2012, 2) the 

notice sent to him by Markel on November 20, 2012, advising 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A05-1610-PL-2271 | May 11, 2017 Page 10 of 17

him of the Sykes/Williams Proposed Complaint, 3) the denial 

letter sent to him on December 4, 2012, by certified mail, and 4) 

the denial letter sent to him on December 4, 2012, by email.

12. Dr. Svabek admitted that the Markel denial letter was sent to 

the exclusive email address he used in December 2012. That 

email, as well as the letters sent to Dr. Svabek by certified mail 

and ordinary mail, create a presumption of delivery that Dr. 

Svabek has not rebutted. E.g., Conrad v. Universal Fire & Cas. Ins. 

Co., 686 N.E.2d 840, 843 (Ind. 1997).

* * *

14. Dr. Svabek submitted his application on December 7, 2012. 

He provides no explanation for why he suddenly decided to 

obtain malpractice insurance three days after his prior carrier sent 

the denial email. . . .

15. Despite having knowledge of the claim, Dr. Svabek did not 

disclose the Sykes/Williams Proposed Complaint in the 

December 7, 2012, application and affirmatively swore there 

were no pending claims against him.

16. False representations warrant rescission “regardless of 

whether the misrepresentation was innocently made or made 

with fraudulent design” because innocent misrepresentations are 

“just as injurious as intentional fraud.”. . . Thus, Dr. Svabek’s 

subjective intent in providing the false information to Lancet 

does not impact whether rescission is appropriate.

17. The information that Dr. Svabek did not disclose in his 

insurance application was material. A representation in an 

application for insurance is deemed material if the facts 

represented reasonably enter into and influence the insurer’s 

decision whether to issue the policy or charge a higher 

premium. . . .
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A05-1610-PL-2271 | May 11, 2017 Page 11 of 17

18. Lancet would have either declined to issue the Policy or 

offered the Policy to Dr. Svabek on different terms if Dr. Svabek 

had provided truthful information in the Statement of No Known 

Claims. Chris Teter’s affidavit is sufficient under Indiana law to 

establish that Dr. Svabek’s failure to inform Lancet of the 

Sykes/Williams Proposed Complaint was material to Lancet’s 

decision to issue the Policy. . . .

19. Moreover, the unambiguous language of the Policy itself 

“deem[ed] material to the acceptance of the risk” the 

misrepresentations at issue.

20. There can be no reasonable difference of opinion that 

information regarding a prior carrier’s previous denial of 

coverage for an existing claim is material to an insurer’s decision 

to issue coverage. . . .

21. Accordingly, Dr. Svabek’s untruthful statement entitles 

Lancet to summary judgment in its favor as to its request for a 

judgment declaring its right to rescind the Policy. The Court 

orders rescission of the Policy and that the parties be returned to 

their respective positions prior to the Policy. Lancet is entitled to 

recover any amounts paid on Dr. Svabek’s behalf for his legal 

defenses during the terms of the Policy subject to any set-off for 

any premium payments on the Policy that Lancet received.

22. Even if Lancet is not entitled to rescind the entire policy, Dr. 

Svabek still would not be entitled to coverage under the Lancet 

Policy for any of the three medical malpractice complaints. 

Several unambiguous exclusions apply.

Id. at 29-33 (emphasis original). In the alternative, the trial court also 

concluded that Svabek failed to timely make deductible payments to Lancet, 

which “operate[d] to exclude any coverage obligation as to” the three 

malpractice claims against Svabek. Id. at 36. This appeal ensued.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A05-1610-PL-2271 | May 11, 2017 Page 12 of 17

Discussion and Decision

[4] Our standard of review is clear. “We first observe that a trial court’s order 

granting summary judgment comes to us ‘cloaked with a presumption of 

validity.’” DiMaggio v. Rosario, 52 N.E.2d 896, 903 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) 

(internal citations omitted). Further,

[w]e review summary judgment de novo, applying the same 

standard as the trial court: “Drawing all reasonable inferences in 

favor of . . . the non-moving parties, summary judgment is 

appropriate ‘if the designated evidentiary matter shows that there 

is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving 

party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Williams v. 

Tharp, 914 N.E.2d 756, 761 (Ind. 2009) (quoting T.R. 56(C)). “A 

fact is ‘material’ if its resolution would affect the outcome of the 

case, and an issue is ‘genuine’ if a trier of fact is required to 

resolve the parties’ differing accounts of the truth, or if the 

undisputed material facts support conflicting reasonable 

inferences.” Id. (internal citations omitted).

The initial burden is on the summary-judgment movant to 

“demonstrate [ ] the absence of any genuine issue of fact as to a 

determinative issue,” at which point the burden shifts to the nonmovant to “come forward with contrary evidence” showing an 

issue for the trier of fact. Id. at 761-62 (internal quotation marks 

and substitution omitted). And “[a]lthough the non-moving 

party has the burden on appeal of persuading us that the grant of 

summary judgment was erroneous, we carefully assess the trial 

court’s decision to ensure that he was not improperly denied his 

day in court.” McSwane v. Bloomington Hosp. & Healthcare Sys., 

916 N.E.2d 906, 909-10 (Ind. 2009) (internal quotation marks 

omitted).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A05-1610-PL-2271 | May 11, 2017 Page 13 of 17

Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000, 1003 (Ind. 2014) (alterations original to 

Hughley). However, we will affirm the “trial court’s entry of summary 

judgment if it can be sustained on any theory or basis in the record.” DiMaggio, 

52 N.E.3d at 904.

[5] In his brief on appeal, Svabek contends that the trial court erred when it entered 

summary judgment based on his failure to pay his deductible within ten days 

and based on the policy exclusions with regard to the three medical malpractice 

claims he had submitted to Lancet. Svabek also contends that the trial court 

erred when it entered summary judgment in favor of Lancet because genuine 

issues of material fact exist regarding whether Lancet is entitled to rescission of 

the contract. Again, the trial court concluded that Lancet was entitled to 

rescind the policy, as a matter of law, because of two misrepresentations made 

by Svabek on his application, namely, that he had no known claims pending 

against him and that he had not previously been denied coverage for a claim. 

Because the trial court concluded that Lancet was entitled to summary 

judgment on the rescission issue alone, and because, as we explain below, 

Svabek has not met his burden to prove that the court erred on that issue, we 

need not address the alternative grounds for summary judgment.

[6] As this court has held,

[f]raud in the inducement of a contract is a proper basis for 

rescission. Hart v. Steel Prods., Inc., 666 N.E.2d 1270 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 1996), trans. denied. The remedy of contract rescission 

functions to restore the parties to their precontract position, that 

is, the status quo. Stevens v. Olsen, 713 N.E.2d 889 (Ind. Ct. App. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A05-1610-PL-2271 | May 11, 2017 Page 14 of 17

1999), trans. denied. A request for rescission of a contract is 

addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Barrington 

Management Co., Inc. v. Paul E. Draper Family Ltd. Partnership, 695 

N.E.2d 135 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). The party seeking rescission 

bears the burden of proving his right to rescission and his ability 

to return any property received under the contract. Id. On the 

other hand, the party appealing the trial court’s grant of 

rescission has the burden of demonstrating that the trial court’s 

decision was erroneous. Id. Rescission is appropriate where the 

party seeking rescission is not in default and the defaulting party 

can be restored to the same condition he occupied before the 

making of the contract. Id.

* * *

. . . [T]he rescission of a contract requires affirmative action 

immediately upon the discovery of the fraud. INB Nat. Bank v. 

Moran Elec. Service, Inc., 608 N.E.2d 702 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993), 

trans. denied. One who asks a court’s aid in compelling the 

rescission of a contract must show that he or she exercised 

reasonable diligence in ascertaining the facts and thereafter 

promptly sought rescission within a reasonable time after 

discovering the fraud. Id. The question whether the party 

seeking rescission acted within a reasonable time is ordinarily a 

question of fact, but becomes a question of law where the facts 

have been ascertained. The determination of whether a delay in 

seeking rescission results in waiver depends on whether the delay 

was long enough to result in prejudice to the other party. Id.

A.J.’s Automotive Sales, Inc. v. Freet,725 N.E.2d 955, 967-68 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), 

trans. denied.

[7] In support of his contention that the trial court erred when it concluded that 

Lancet was entitled to rescission of the policy on summary judgment, Svabek
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A05-1610-PL-2271 | May 11, 2017 Page 15 of 17

avers that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding (1) whether he had 

knowledge of “one or more” of the three medical malpractice claims against 

him “when he signed the Statement of No Known Claims/Losses” in his 

application for the policy and (2) whether “Lancet’s offer of rescission was 

reasonably prompt under the circumstances.” Appellant’s Br. at 16. But 

Svabek omits any argument with respect to the trial court’s conclusion that he 

also misrepresented in his application whether a “prior insurance carrier had 

refused or declined to issue coverage regarding any medical incident or threat of 

claim” and the court’s conclusion that a prior denial of coverage “is material to 

an insurer’s decision to issue coverage.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 30, 33.

[8] The trial court concluded that Lancet was entitled to rescission based on each of 

Svabek’s misrepresentations in the application. On appeal, Svabek does not 

deny that he falsely claimed in his application that “no prior insurance carrier 

had refused or declined to issue coverage regarding any medical incident or 

threat of claim.” Id. at 30. And Svabek does not challenge the trial court’s 

conclusions that “a prior carrier’s previous denial of coverage for an existing 

claim is material to an insurer’s decision to issue coverage” and that, 

“[a]ccordingly, [his] untruthful statement entitles Lancet to summary judgment 

in its favor as to its request for a judgment declaring its right to rescind the 

Policy.” Id. at 33. Finally, Svabek makes no argument on appeal that Lancet 

did not “promptly s[eek] rescission within a reasonable time after discovering 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A05-1610-PL-2271 | May 11, 2017 Page 16 of 17

the fraud” with respect to the denial of coverage misrepresentation.1 Freet,725 

N.E.2d at 968.

[9] In sum, Svabek has failed to “demonstrate [ ] the absence of any genuine issue 

of fact as to a determinative issue,” namely, that Lancet is entitled to rescission 

based on Svabek’s misrepresentation on his application for insurance regarding 

a prior denial of coverage. Hughley, 15 N.E.3d at 1003; and see Colonial Penn Ins. 

Co. v. Guzorek, 690 N.E.2d 664, 672 (Ind. 1997) (holding a material 

misrepresentation or omission of fact in an insurance application, relied on by 

the insurer in issuing the policy, renders the coverage voidable at the insurance 

company’s option). Again, we will affirm the trial court’s entry of summary 

judgment on any theory supported by the record. DiMaggio, 52 N.E.3d at 904. 

Svabek has not met his burden on appeal to persuade us that the trial court’s 

entry of summary judgment was clearly erroneous.2

[10] Affirmed.

 

1

 To the extent Svabek attempts to make that argument in his Reply Brief, it is well settled that a party may 

not raise an issue for the first time in a reply brief. See Felsher v. Univ. of Evansville, 755 N.E.2d 589, 593 n.6 

(Ind. 2001). Moreover, we note that Svabek does not direct us to any evidence in the record to show when 

Lancet first became aware that Svabek had lied in his application. Svabek maintains that Lancet was “on 

notice” about the misrepresentation with respect to known claims when it “began defending the Sykes and 

Williams Matter” on behalf of Svabek in December 2012 “or shortly thereafter.” Appellant’s Br. at 16. But 

Svabek does not explain how Lancet’s defense in that litigation tends to prove that Lancet knew about either 

of Svabek’s misrepresentations in his application at that time. And Svabek does not cite any evidence in the 

record to show when Lancet knew that Svabek had previously been denied coverage by another insurance 

carrier.

2

 Because we affirm the trial court’s entry of summary judgment for Lancet, we need not address Svabek’s 

contention that the court erred when it struck several paragraphs from his proposed findings and conclusions.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A05-1610-PL-2271 | May 11, 2017 Page 17 of 17

Riley, J., and Bradford, J., concur.