X hits on this document





8 / 21

Summary judgment is appropriate only where the designated evidentiary material demonstrates that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  Ind. Trial Rule 56(C);  Jones v. Western Reserve Group/Lightning Rod Mut. Ins. Co. (1998) Ind.App., 699 N.E.2d 711, 713, reh’g denied, trans. denied.  Genuine issues of material fact exist where facts concerning an issue which would dispose of litigation are in dispute.  Id. at 713-14.  On appeal, we must carefully scrutinize an entry of summary judgment to ensure that the non-prevailing party is not denied his or her day in court.  Id.  We must apply the same standard as the trial court and resolve disputed facts or inferences in favor of the non-moving party.  Id.  The burden is upon the moving party to establish, prima facie, that no genuine issues of material fact exist and that he or she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  Chance v. State Auto Ins. Co. (1997) Ind.App., 684 N.E.2d 569, 570, trans. denied.  Only then does the burden fall upon the non-moving party to respond by setting forth specific facts demonstrating a genuine issue for trial.  Id.

Housewares insists that there were genuine issues of material fact and that National was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  Thus, we must first determine the legal issues involved, and then determine if facts relevant to these issues are in dispute.  Bolin v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. (1990) Ind.App., 557 N.E.2d 1084, 1085, trans. denied.

The Known Loss Doctrine

Document info
Document views59
Page views59
Page last viewedTue Jan 17 07:55:21 UTC 2017