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.

Metal Pro Roofing, LLC v. The Cincinnati Insurance Co.

Court of Appeals of Indiana

August 9, 2019

Metal Pro Roofing, LLC and Cornett Restoration, LLC, Appellants-Defendants/CounterPlaintiffs,
v.
The Cincinnati Insurance Company, Appellee-Plaintiff/CounterDefendant

          Appeal from the Johnson Superior Court The Honorable Kevin M. Barton, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 41D01-1501-PL-1

          ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS Sheila Tow Law Office of Sheila Tow, LLC Plainfield, Indiana

          ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Ginny L. Peterson Kightlinger & Gray, LLP Indianapolis, Indiana

          VAIDIK, CHIEF JUDGE.

         Case Summary

         [¶1] Metal Pro Roofing, LLC and Cornett Restoration, LLC ("the LLCs") appeal the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of The Cincinnati Insurance Company ("Cincinnati") in a dispute over insurance coverage. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

         Facts and Procedural History

         [¶2] In February 2013, the LLCs, both of which are owned by Richard Cornett, discovered that someone had hacked into their bank accounts and stolen over $78, 000. The next month, the LLCs made claims under insurance policies that had been issued to them by Cincinnati. They contend that the losses are covered under two different provisions of the CinciPlus Crime XC (Expanded Coverage Plus) Coverage Part of the policies: "Forgery or Alteration" and "Inside the Premises - Theft of Money and Securities."

         [¶3] The "Forgery or Alteration" coverage provides, in relevant part:

We will pay for loss resulting directly from "forgery" or alteration of checks, drafts, promissory notes, or similar written promises, orders or directions to pay a sum certain in money that are
(1) Made or drawn by or drawn upon you; or
(2) Made or drawn by one acting as your agent;
or that are purported to have been so made or drawn.

Appellants' App. Vol. II pp. 58, 76. The policies define "forgery," in relevant part, as "the signing of the name of another person or organization with intent to deceive[.]" Id. at 69, 87. The policies do not define "alteration."

         [¶4] The "Inside the Premises" coverage provides, in relevant part:

We will pay for loss of "money" and "securities" inside the "premises" or "banking premises":
(1) Resulting directly from "theft" committed by a person present inside such "premises" or "banking premises"; ...

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.