Court Opinion

ID: 9523197
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:37:02.319036+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:04:41.757570
License: Public Domain

BROOK, Chief Judge,
concurring in result as to issue 3.
Federated correctly observes that after the jury found in its favor on the question of coverage with respect to Hillary's "resident" status, the Armstrongs attempted to advance a new theory of recovery in their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. See Appellee's Br. at 15; Op. at 290 n. 2. Given that the Armstrongs did not litigate the issue of whether they suffered "bodily injury," we should decline their invitation to address its merits and reserve it for another day when it is properly before us. See Pitman v. Pitman, 717 N.E.2d 627, 633 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) ("It is well-settled that a party cannot argue on appeal an issue which was not properly presented to the trial court. When an issue is not presented before the trial court, appellate review of that issue is waived.") (citations omitted). This court does not and should not issue advisory opinions. See Richardson v. Calderon, 713 N.E.2d 856, 863 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), trans. denied (2000).