A.i. Credit Corporation v. Legion Insurance Co.

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
November 26, 2001
Before
Hon. THOMAS E. FAIRCHILD, Circuit Judge
Hon. RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge
Hon. JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge
No. 00-3848
A.I. CREDIT CORPORATION,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LEGION INSURANCE CO., et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States
District Court for the Northern
District of Indiana, Hammond
Division
No. 99 C 10
Allen Sharp,
Judge.
O R D E R
Upon consideration of the petition for rehearing filed September 25, 2001
and answer filed October 19, 2001, our opinion dated September 12, 2001 is
amended as follows:
The last two sentences in the first full paragraph on page 8 of the slip
opinion are deleted and the following text is substituted:
A jury could further find that this conduct violated a duty that arose
out of the borrower-lender relationship between Monon and A.I. Credit
and the special relationship between McPherson and the MRM
companies and A.I. Credit arising out of a course of dealing in prior
years whereby McPherson provided the information concerning
Monon’s insurance needs and A.I. Credit relied on it. See, e.g., Wells,

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 00-3848 Page 2
691 N.E.2d at 1251 (constructive fraud may arise from buyer-seller
relationship); Epperly v. Johnson, 734 N.E.2d 1066, 1074 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2000) (constructive fraud action must be premised on “special
relationship”).
The words, “a duty may have existed in these circumstances if Monon’s
insurance contract with Legion obligated Legion to provide accurate policy
information to third-party finance companies like A.I. Credit and McPherson
breached that duty by providing Rago or Carroll with incorrect information.” in the
sentence beginning on page 9 and ending on page 10 of the slip opinion are deleted
and the following text is substituted:
the same course of conduct from which a jury could find a duty in the
context of constructive fraud would support a finding of a duty to
provide accurate information to A.I. Credit. A jury could find that
McPherson breached that duty by providing Rago or Carroll with
incorrect information.
In all other respects the petition for rehearing is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED

-- 2 of 2 --