Pasley v. American Underwriters, Inc., 3-581A130
Decision Date | 14 April 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 3-581A130,3-581A130 |
Citation | 433 N.E.2d 838 |
Parties | Franklin PASLEY, Appellant-Defendant, v. AMERICAN UNDERWRITERS, INC., Appellee-Plaintiff. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Gilbert King, Jr., Lloyd B. Fisher, Gary, for appellant-defendant.
James K. Whitaker, James K. Whitaker & Associates, Hammond, for appellee-plaintiff.
Franklin Pasley appeals from a declaratory judgment rendered in favor of American Underwriters, Inc. In that judgment the Lake Circuit Court held that Pasley had not properly filed a tort claim against the estate of Jimmie Members, and therefore such claim was barred.
We affirm.
Jimmie Members was the insured under a motorcycle liability policy issued by American Underwriters, Inc. (American). On May 11, 1975, Members, while operating his motorcycle, struck and seriously injured Franklin Pasley. Members died instantly.
During the two year period following the accident, no estate was opened for Members, and no personal or special representative was appointed. On May 10, 1977, (one day prior to the running of the statute), Pasley filed a complaint against "Jimmie Members (deceased), John Doe, or Mary Doe, heirs and descendants of Jimmie Members."
American, as Members' insuror, subsequently filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against Pasley, seeking a declaration that Pasley's suit was barred by the 2 year statute of limitations. American claimed in the complaint Pasley had not followed the proper procedure in filing his claim for personal injury against Members' estate because Pasley had neither opened the estate nor had a representative for the estate been appointed. Thus, American claimed, Pasley's suit was barred by Ind.Code 29-1-14-1. Subsequently American moved for summary judgment. The trial court held there was no genuine issue of material fact, and American was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. From this ruling Pasley appeals.
Pasley presents only one issue for review. Did he follow the proper procedure in filing his complaint against Jimmie Members' estate even though no estate was opened and no personal or special representative was appointed prior to the running of the statute of limitations.
At issue is an interpretation of IC 29-1-14-1. That statute provides in part:
It is Pasley's contention IC 29-1-14-1(f) specifically allows tort claimants to bring an action against a decedent's estate regardless of whether an estate has been opened and administrator appointed. He contends subsection (f) does not require an administrator to be appointed prior to the filing of a claim; the statute permits but does not require suit to be filed against the estate and its representative. Since he claims the appointment of an administrator is not mandatory, Pasley argues his complaint, filed within the statutory period, tolled the running of the statute.
Appellant cites no authority to support this contention. Further, we can find none. IC 29-1-14-1(a) specifically states that "(a)ll claims against a decedent's estate ... shall be forever barred against the estate, the personal representative, the heirs, devisees, and legatees of the decedent, unless filed with the court in which such estate is being administered ...." (Emphasis added.)
In Kuzma, Adm' of the Estate of Rosemary Kuzma v. People's Trust & Savings Bank, Boonville, (1961) 132 Ind.App. 176, 176 N.E.2d 134, decided before the enactment of IC 29-1-14-1(f), this Court held tort claims were barred if the decedent's estate was not opened and such action filed as a claim against it within one year from the date of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bailey v. Martz, 4-485A116
...statute, not a statute of limitations. It establishes conditions precedent to recovery against an estate. Pasley v. American Underwriters, Inc. (1982), Ind.App., 433 N.E.2d 838, 840. Martz and Chidester further assert Mark's estate has no claim for medical expenses under IND. CODE 34-1-1-2 ......
-
Shearer v. Pla-Boy, Inc.
...of falling within Burns Sec. 2-607 (now I.C. Sec. 34-1-2-7). Finally, the Employers rely on two cases, Pasley v. American Underwriter's, Inc. (1982), Ind.App., 433 N.E.2d 838 and Langston v. Estate of Cuppels by Miller (1984), Ind.App., 471 N.E.2d 17, to support their contention that Sheare......
-
Indiana Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Richie
...LAW AND PRACTICE § 10, at 310 (7th ed.1978). Indiana Farmers points to the Court of Appeals' decision in Pasley v. American Underwriters, 433 N.E.2d 838 (Ind.Ct.App.1982), which disallowed a tort claim filed within statute of limitations because the estate was not opened and a personal repr......
-
Estate of Eiteljorg v. Eiteljorg
...clear that "the estate of a decedent cannot be a party to an action without some form ofrepresentation." Pasley v. Am. Underwriters, Inc., 433 N.E.2d 838, 841 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982) (citing Wilson v. King's Estate; 170 N.E.2d 63 (Ind. Ct. App. 1960); Carr v. Schneider's Estate, 51 N.E.2d 392 ......