Fort Wayne Injury and Disability Attorney Nathaniel Hubley

Written by:  Nathaniel O Hubley Attorney licensed in Indiana Attorney Nathaniel Hubley Case Analysis: Everett Cash Mutual Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 926 N.E.2d 1008 (Ind. 2010). Facts of Case:   The Taylors are farmers who employed an independent contractor to paint a house, grain bin, and barn on their premises.  An employee of the independent contractor sustained injuries when he was shocked by an electrical wire and fell from a ladder.  The employee filed a workers compensation claim against his employer, but he ultimately learned that his employer did not possess workers compensation insurance.  He thus sought payment from the Taylors pursuant to I.C. § 22-3-2-14(b), which imposes liability on a person who hires a contractor without verifying that the contractor carries workers compensation insurance.  The Taylors had failed to verify this information from the independent contractor. Prior to this incident, the Taylors had purchased a farm personal lia...

Attorney Nathaniel Hubley - Fort Wayne, Indiana The State of Indiana is considered an employment-at-will state. This means that an employer can fire an employee for any reason, whether good or bad, as long as it is not an illegal reason. One of my previous  guides  discusses in detail what is considered an illegal reason.  Because of what some may call a lack of legal recourse for employees in the State of Indiana, the  Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)  plays an important role. FMLA provides qualified employees with up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave per year. It also requires that their group health benefits be maintained during the leave. FMLA is designed to help employees balance their work and family responsibilities by allowing them to take reasonable unpaid leave for certain family and medical reasons. It also seeks to accommodate the legitimate interests of employers and promote equal employment opportunity for men and women. FMLA ...

Case:   Morehead v. Deitrich,  932 N.E.2d 1272 (Ind.Ct.App. 2010). Facts of Case :    Deitrich owned a single family residence in Logansport, and rented the residence to Sanders, who owned a pit bull.   Even though the lease agreement provided that there were to be no pets owned by the tenants, Deitrich made an exception even though he admitted he knew of the dangerous and vicious propensities of the pit bull.   Morehead was delivering mail and after placing mail in the residence’s mailbox, she heard the dog and was ultimately bitten by the pit bull, sustaining injuries.   She filed her Complaint against Deitrich for personal injuries, and Deitrich filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that since he did not retain any control over the property, he owed no duty to Morehead.   The trial court granted summary judgment for the landlord, and Morehead filed a Motion to Correct Error, which was denied by the trial court. Issue : ...