Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Indiana Insurance Co. v. Kopetsky

Court of Appeals of Indiana

August 7, 2014

INDIANA INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant/Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant,
v.
PATRICIA KOPETSKY, Appellee/Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff, and KB HOME INDIANA INC., Appellee/Defendant

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT. Cause No. 49D04-0904-PL-16903. The Honorable Cynthia J. Ayers, Judge.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: GINNY L. PETERSON, Kightlinger & Gray, LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE PATRICIA KOPETSKY: W. BRENT THRELKELD, BENJAMIN G. STEVENSON, Threlkeld & Associates, Indianapolis, Indiana.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE KB HOME INDIANA INC.: PETER J. RUSTHOVEN, E. SEAN GRIGGS, DAVID M. HEGER, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana.

BRADFORD, Judge. CRONE, J, and PYLE, J., concur.

OPINION

OPINION ON REHEARING -- FOR PUBLICATION

BRADFORD, Judge

CASE SUMMARY

Appellee/Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff Patricia Kopetsky has petitioned for

Page 851

rehearing. Patricia requests that we correct a factual error in our original opinion and clarify our holding regarding a possible finding that George Kopetsky knew (or did not know) of contamination in Cedar Park prior to obtaining CGL coverage from Appellant/Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant Indiana Insurance Company. In its response to Patricia's petition, Indiana Insurance also requests that we clarify our holding regarding George's knowledge. We grant Patricia's rehearing petition in order to correct our factual error and in order to clarify our original holding.

I. Factual Description of Cedar Park

In our original opinion, section A of the "Facts and Procedural History" contained the following passage: "Cedar Park is divided into three sections: Section 1 (fifty-seven lots) on the eastern edge, Section 2 (seventy-five lots) in the middle, and Section 3 (seventy-one lots) on the western edge." All agree that this is incorrect, as Section 3 is ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.