The Jacobs and Diemer team, led by partner Nate Peplinski, obtained another reversal in the Court of Appeals. This particular appeal had the additional headwind of stemming from a judge-tried bench trial, but the Court of Appeals reversed the money judgment and held that the auto insurer was not responsible for paying for the plaintiff’s modified van.

The case revolved around whether a previous contract required the defendant, an auto insurance company, to continue to purchase new, modified vehicles for the plaintiff after initially ordering the first one. 

Per the agreement of the parties, the plaintiff received a modified vehicle in 2004, paid for by the insurer. Years later, the plaintiff asked the defendant to pay for a new one. The trial judge ultimately agreed with the plaintiff and ordered the defendant to pay for the purchase of another modified vehicle. 

On appeal, Nate Peplinski persuaded the appellate panel that the defendant’s agreement to purchase an initial vehicle did not obligate subsequent purchases of additional vans. As a result, the bench judgment was reversed, and the client’s monetary liability was extinguished.