# Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Armstrong

> Indiana Supreme Court · December 6, 1982 · 442 N.E.2d 349

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9539923

## Case

- **Full name:** The TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. Orrie L. ARMSTRONG, Appellee (Plaintiff Below)
- **Court:** Indiana Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 6, 1982
- **Citations:** 442 N.E.2d 349; 1982 Ind. LEXIS 1020
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Givan
- **Judges:** Prentice, Debruler, Hunter, Givan, Pivarnik
- **Cited by:** 214 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9539923

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that “courts uniformly hold ... that actual cash value insurance is strictly a contract of indemnity. The insured should be made whole but not be put in a better position than he was before the fire.”
- rejecting replacement cost without deduction for depreciation as a proper method of determining actual cash value

## Opinion text

GIVAN, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion’s decision concerning punitive damages. I agree with the guidelines laid down in the majority opinion, but I disagree with their application in the case at bar. The facts submitted in the trial court are sufficient to support the award of punitive damages.
There is no question but what Travelers through its agent misrepresented the insurance contract to the plaintiff. They now argue that such a misrepresentation was a mere “mistake.” It was well within the province of the jury to believe that Travelers was an expert in its business, that it fully understood the import of the contract in question and that the misrepresentation to the plaintiff was deliberately calculated to take advantage of her in a situation in which she had no expertise.
It was fully within the province of the jury also to consider the stress this misrepresentation placed the plaintiff in and it certainly could consider that she was required to employ counsel who was, in turn, forced to engage in costly litigation in her behalf when a simple and correct application of the contract by Travelers would have resulted in prompt payment without such litigation.
Although I agree with the general principles of law laid down in the majority opinion, I feel the majority has transcended the bounds of appellate review and has engaged in a weighing of the evidence to determine that punitive damages should not have been awarded.
I would affirm the trial court in all respects.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9539923. Public record. Not legal advice.