Court Opinion

ID: 9773656
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:52:56.352901+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:55.890420
License: Public Domain

RILEY, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
While I agree with the majority’s decision on the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of the law firm, I respectfully part ways with its interpretation of Great American’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
It is well established that an injured third party does not have the right to bring a direct action against a wrongdoer’s liability insurer. Wilson v. Continental Casualty Co., 778 N.E.2d 849, 851 (Ind.Ct.App.2002). However, where the third party is not suing the insurance company to establish that its insured committed a tort against the third party, but is rather suing to establish whether the insurer can deny *305coverage or whether the insurance policy remained in effect, such suit is not considered a direct action suit against an insurer. Community Action of Greater Indianapolis, Inc. v. Indiana Farmers Mutual Ins. Co., 708 N.E.2d 882, 885 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), trans. denied (citing Bankers Trust Co. v. Old Republic Ins. Co., 959 F.2d 677, 682 (7th Cir.1992)).
We are here faced with the interesting situation that although the underlying tort claim against the law firm is barred by the statute of limitations, the suit against the insurance company might proceed because it is governed by the ten-year statute of limitations. See I.C. § 34-11-2-11; Perryman v. Motorist Mut. Ins. Co., 846 N.E.2d 683, 688 (Ind.Ct.App.2006). According to the majority then, Myers’ is entitled to bring his claim against Great American because, while not expressly seeking a declaratory judgment on the question of insurance coverage, “Myers sufficiently stated facts that would support a declaratory judgment action.” Op. p. 303. I disagree with the majority’s interpretation of Myers’ complaint.
It is clear that Myers’ complaint contemplates a direct action against the law firm, not a declaratory judgment. In his complaint, Myers only focuses on the redress of damages resulting from the law firm’s perceived tortious conduct, seeking compensatory, treble, and punitive damages. At no point in his complaint does Myers allude to seeking a declaration that the insurance policy is in effect; rather, he is seeking the reimbursement of his retainer from either the law firm or directly from Great American. Therefore, as I do not find any circumstances which could grant Myers relief, the trial court’s grant for judgment on the pleadings was proper.