MEMORANDUM DECISION
ON REHEARING
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be
FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Oct 25 2018, 8:55 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
David W. Masse STATE FARM MUTUAL
Merrillville, Indiana AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO.
Crystal G. Rowe
Alyssa C.B. Cochran
Kightlinger & Gray, LLP
New Albany, Indiana
John H. Halstead
Kightlinger & Gray, LLP
Merrillville, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Kayla Owens, October 25, 2018
Appellant-Plaintiff, Court of Appeals Case No.
45A05-1712-CT-2934
v. Appeal from the Lake Superior
Court
Amanda Caudillo and State The Honorable William E. Davis,
Farm Mutual Automobile Judge
Insurance Co., Trial Court Cause No.
Appellees-Plaintiffs 45D05-1304-CT-65
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Mem. Dec. on Rehearing 45A05-1712-CT-2934 | October 25, 2018 Page 1 of 5
Baker, Judge.
[1] Kayla Owens has filed a petition for rehearing with respect to this Court’s
original opinion in this case. Owens v. Caudillo, No. 45A05-1712-CT-2934 (Ind.
Ct. App. Aug. 2, 2018). On rehearing, she raises two issues: (1) this Court
erred in concluding that Owens had failed to make a prima facie case on her
claim for uninsured motorist benefits; and (2) this Court should have found that
the trial court erred by denying Owens’s motion to reopen the evidence after her
attorney inadvertently rested. We grant rehearing in part to address Owens’s
second argument, and we reach a different result this time.
[2] After the parties rested their cases, Owens’s attorney realized that a small, but
vital, portion of evidence had been inadvertently omitted. Counsel requested
that the evidence be reopened so that a brief series of questions could be asked
of State Farm’s corporate representative. Owens’s brief on rehearing provides
examples of possible questions that would have been asked:
Q. Did you conduct an investigation to determine whether or not
the Defendant, Amanda Caudillo, was in fact uninsured? The
expected answer would be yes.
Q. Upon finding that Ms. Caudillo was an uninsured motorist, did
this finding lead you to pay out money on an uninsured
motorist claim to Cierra Charbonneau in another Lake County,
Indiana, matter titled Cierra Charbonneau v. Amanda Caudillo and
State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., filed under cause number
45D11-1305-CT-00083? The expected answer is yes.
Q. And was Ms. Charbonneau’s claim paid by State Farm
Insurance under precisely the same policy of insurance for the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Mem. Dec. on Rehearing 45A05-1712-CT-2934 | October 25, 2018 Page 2 of 5
same automobile accident as in Ms. Owens’ case? Again the
expected answer would be in the affirmative.
Q. And based on this determination that Ms. Caudillo was
uninsured, did you hire counsel to take up the defense of Ms.
Caudillo in this action on behalf of State Farm’s interests
pursuant to the uninsured motorist provisions of Ms. Owens’
own automobile policy? The answer here must be yes.
Appellant’s Br. on Reh. p. 7-8. Had Owens been permitted to reopen the
evidence, she could have established that Caudillo was uninsured and that State
Farm itself had acknowledged that fact in another claim stemming from the
very same accident.1
[3] It is undeniable that Owens’s attorney made a disastrous mistake by resting
before ensuring that this crucial evidence had been admitted. It is likewise
undeniable that it would have been eminently reasonable for the trial court to
firmly chastise counsel for the error. All of that said, however, the jury was still
empaneled and the evidence to be introduced was extremely limited and
specific. Reopening the evidence would have caused no prejudice to State
1
State Farm argues that this evidence would not have conclusively established that Caudillo is uninsured.
Appellee’s Br. on Reh. p. 7. We are not persuaded by this argument. In our view, evidence that State Farm
itself had acknowledged Caudillo as uninsured in another claim stemming from the same accident is
compelling evidence indeed that she was uninsured. If nothing else, it is sufficiently persuasive that it should
have been before the jury as it made its determination.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Mem. Dec. on Rehearing 45A05-1712-CT-2934 | October 25, 2018 Page 3 of 5
Farm, nor would it have caused confusion or inconvenience to the trial court or
the jury.
[4] The result in this case was an unearned $170,000 windfall to State Farm
stemming from an inadvertent attorney error that could have been easily and
quickly remedied. We agree with Owens that this outcome defies traditional
notions of substantial justice and fair play. Under these circumstances, we can
only conclude that the trial court erred by denying Owens’s motion to reopen
the evidence. Therefore, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Kirsch, J., concurs.
Bradford, J., dissents with separate opinion.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Mem. Dec. on Rehearing 45A05-1712-CT-2934 | October 25, 2018 Page 4 of 5
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Kayla Owens, Court of Appeals Case No.
45A05-1712-CT-2934
Appellant-Plaintiff,
v.
Amanda Caudillo and State
Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Co.,
Appellees-Defendants.
Bradford, Judge, dissenting.
[5] I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision on rehearing and, based on
the reasoning included in the memorandum decision issued on August 2, 2018,
would vote to deny rehearing.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Mem. Dec. on Rehearing 45A05-1712-CT-2934 | October 25, 2018 Page 5 of 5