Court Opinion

ID: 9626656
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:20:38.965263+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:10:38.297715
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the Court’s opinion.
I.C. § 33-3001 established ISU, “consisting of such colleges, schools or departments as may from time to time be authorized by the state board of education [SBE].” I.C. § 33-3003 makes it plain that while ISU is “a body politic and corporate, with its own seal and having power to sue and be sued in its own name,” SBE supervises, governs, and controls ISU. SBE has all the rights and title to the property of ISU and has the power to insure this property. I.C. §§ 33-3005 and 33-3006(7). SBE is an executive department of state government. I.C. § 33-101.
BRM acted for ISU to acquire the Continental BEL policy (the policy). The policy was designed for issuance to school districts, not to institutions of higher education. The policy named ISU as the “School District.” By endorsement, “School District” was defined in the policy to mean not only ISU, but also “its Governing Board.” Contrary to the Court’s opinion, the policy did not insure ISU but insured:
All persons who were, now are or shall be employed by the School District and shall also include student teachers and all elected or appointed members of the Board of Education, Trustees or School Directors of the School District.
By this provision, the policy insured the members of SBE and the employees of ISU who were the defendants in the Hale litigation.
The Court’s opinion erroneously focuses on whether ISU is a separate legal entity. The correct focus should be on the fact that SBE was insured under the policy. We should then move on to address the remaining issues in the case.
BISTLINE, J., concurs.