Court Opinion

ID: 9724948
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:22:22.57365+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:08.183177
License: Public Domain

ROBERTSON, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in part and dissent in part. I agree that Daryl is a member of his grandmother’s household and is therefore covered under her homeowner’s policy. With respect to Issue II, I agree with the majority that the issue of whether Erie was actually prejudiced by the delay represents a genuine issue of material fact which must be submitted to the finder of fact. I disagree, however, with the determination that the four year delay was unreasonable as a matter of law. Whether a given delay is unreasonable depends upon the purpose for which notice is given and the circumstances of the case. Miller v. Dilts, 463 N.E.2d 257, 263 (Ind.1984). The purpose of the notice requirement was to give Erie a timely opportunity to investigate the accident and prepare a defense for Daryl — not simply to provide a basis for Erie to avoid its obligations under the policy. One circumstance contributing to the delay in this case was the fact that Huser was a minor when injured and therefore had a longer period in which to initiate her lawsuit — a matter beyond Stephenson’s or Erie’s control. Therefore, as remand for trial is required anyway, I believe the issue of the reasonableness of the delay as a component of the larger issue of whether Erie was actually prejudiced should also be submitted to the finder of fact.