Court Opinion

ID: 9532255
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:19:37.740717+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:42.949827
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion
White, J.
Intervenor Midwest’s second defense (although impermissibly vague) purported to raise the issue of Midwest’s liability to plaintiff, an issue foreign to the controversy between plaintiff and defendant. For that reason it should have been stricken. For error in overruling plaintiff’s motion to strike the judgment must be reversed. But anything I may have said in my dissent in Indiana Insurance Company v. Noble (1970), 148 Ind. App. 297, 265 N.E.2d 419, 24 Ind. Dec. 223, notwithstanding, I am of the opinion that Midwest had a right to intervene, but only to defend on the issues of the original defendant’s (DeLong’s) liability to plaintiff (Smith) and Smith’s damages. My quarrel with the majority in Indiana was not over the right to intervene, but over the effect of Indiana’s having failed to intervene after having been given notice. Any doubts as to the right to intervene which my dissent may seem to imply must be deemed to have been extinguished by the Supreme Court’s denial of transfer.
I would reverse and remand with directions to sustain the motion to strike and for further proceedings not inconsistent with the views expressed herein.
Note. — Reported at 289 N.E.2d 788.