Steury v. Northern Indiana Public Service Co.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Steury v. Northern Indiana Public Service Co.

520 N.E.2d 1280, 1988 Ind. App. LEXIS 170, 1988 WL 27567

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 31, 1988

DocketNo. 35A02-8606-CV-218

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 520 N.E.2d 1280 (Steury v. Northern Indiana Public Service Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Steury v. Northern Indiana Public Service Co., 520 N.E.2d 1280, 1988 Ind. App. LEXIS 170, 1988 WL 27567 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinions

ON REHEARING

BUCHANAN, Judge.

NIPSCO seeks rehearing from our decision in Steury v. Northern Indiana Pub. Serv. Co. (1987), Ind.App., 510 N.E.2d 213. In our opinion, we concluded that summary judgment was inappropriate because a contractor, under certain factual cireumstance-es, could be subrogated to the rights of the homeowners in a negligence action against NIPSCO when the home was damaged by an explosion allegedly due to a gas line fracture.

NIPSCO argues on rehearing that the right of subrogation does not arise unless the claim of the homeowners is entirely paid. Assuming that payment is required, our reversal of summary judgment for NIPSCO stands because the facts do not completely resolve this issue. See Creighton v. Caylor-Nickel Hosp. (1985), Ind. App., 484 N.E.2d 1303, trans. denied; Stuteville v. Downing (1979), 181 Ind.App. 197, 391 N.E.2d 629. An inference arises from the facts before us, albeit conflicting, that Steury may have rebuilt or reconstructed the Worls's home in satisfaction of their claim. So, if doubt remains as to the existence of this material fact, or if inferences are conflicting, it must be resolved against NIPSCO, the moving party. See Sink & Edwards, Inc. v. Huber, Hunt & Nichols, Inc. (1984), Ind.App., 458 N.E.2d 291, trans. denied.

Rehearing denied.

MILLER, P.J., concurs. SULLIVAN, J., concurs with separate opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ON REHEARING

BUCHANAN, Judge.

NIPSCO seeks rehearing from our decision in Steury v. Northern Indiana Pub. Serv. Co. (1987), Ind.App., 510 N.E.2d 213. In our opinion, we concluded that summary judgment was inappropriate because a contractor, under certain factual cireumstance-es, could be subrogated to the rights of the homeowners in a negligence action against NIPSCO when the home was damaged by an explosion allegedly due to a gas line fracture.

NIPSCO argues on rehearing that the right of subrogation does not arise unless the claim of the homeowners is entirely paid. Assuming that payment is required, our reversal of summary judgment for NIPSCO stands because the facts do not completely resolve this issue. See Creighton v. Caylor-Nickel Hosp. (1985), Ind. App., 484 N.E.2d 1303, trans. denied; Stuteville v. Downing (1979), 181 Ind.App. 197, 391 N.E.2d 629. An inference arises from the facts before us, albeit conflicting, that Steury may have rebuilt or reconstructed the Worls's home in satisfaction of their claim. So, if doubt remains as to the existence of this material fact, or if inferences are conflicting, it must be resolved against NIPSCO, the moving party. See Sink & Edwards, Inc. v. Huber, Hunt & Nichols, Inc. (1984), Ind.App., 458 N.E.2d 291, trans. denied.

Rehearing denied.

MILLER, P.J., concurs. SULLIVAN, J., concurs with separate opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

520 N.E.2d 1280, 1988 Ind. App. LEXIS 170, 1988 WL 27567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steury-v-northern-indiana-public-service-co-indctapp-1988.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack