Edward W. Hearn is a shareholder for Johnson & Bell's Crown Point, Indiana, office. He concentrates his area of practice on product liability, commercial litigation, transportation law, and insurance coverage. He has tried cases to verdict in courts throughout Northern Indiana; he has represented not only individuals but also large corporations and insurers. Mr. Hearn's cases have involved all aspects of civil litigation. Additionally, Mr. Hearn handles coverage opinions and declaratory judgment actions.
Mr. Hearn is one of Indiana's most active litigators. The Indiana Jury Verdict Reporter has listed Mr. Hearn as being included in the top ten of its list of Most Prolific Trial Attorneys every year since its publication began in 2000. He has tried over seventy -five jury trials as well as hundreds of bench trials and contested hearings. Mr. Hearn also has an active appellate practice and regularly brings appeals to the Indiana Appellate Courts.
Mr. Hearn manages Johnson & Bell's Indiana team of trial attorneys which draws upon the resources of the entire Johnson & Bell, Ltd. firm. He is a member of the Defense Research Institute and the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana. In his spare time, Mr. Hearn is active in power boat competitions.
Article Feature
· Edward W. Hearn Featured in Indiana Lawyer Publication
Published Opinions
· Porter County Development v. Citibank, 855 N.E.2d 306 (Ind.Ct.App. 2006) opinion adopted_N.E.2d_(Ind. 2007) (holding that Indiana's Commercial Code prevents recovery of allegedly stolen funds used to pay credit card bills where funds were received by credit card company in good faith and without knowledge of the theft).
· Querry & Harrow, Ltd. v. Transcontinental Ins. Co., 861 N.E.2d 719 (Ind.Ct.App. 2007) trans. granted (holding that attorneys hired to represent an insured owe no duty to an excess insurer and cannot be liable to the excess carrier for alleged attorney malpractice).
· Holcomb v. Walter's Dimmick, 858 N.E.2d 103 (Ind. 2006) (holding that a report of suspected criminal activity may not be made the basis of civil liability where the report to the authorities was made in good faith even though it was erroneous).
· Lovings v. Cleary, 799 N.E.2d 76 (Ind.Ct.App. 2003) (holding that the sudden emergency defense is not available where all parties have knowledge of slippery road conditions).
· AT&T Wireless v. Town Porter, 203 F.Supp.2d 985 (N.D.Ind. 2002) (holding that a municipality may not be required to grant a zoning exemption for a cellular phone tower under federal law where the municipality has a factual basis reduced to writing for its denial of the exemption).
· Thomas v. Dyer Construction Co., 698 N.E.2d 320 (Ind.Ct.App. 1998) (holding that a contractor may be liable to an injured worker where questions of fact exist as to the discharge of any alleged duty).
· Zosso v. Porter County, 676 N.E.2d 1108 (Ind.Ct.App. 1997) (holding that the county highway department may be liable for a failure to properly maintain a railroad crossing).
· Chodock v. American Economy, 3:05-CV-750 (N.D.Ind. 2007) (holding that an insurer cannot be liable for bad faith where a factual dispute exists as to whether the insurance agent for the insured may have obligated the carrier to provide underinsured motorist coverage even though the language of the policy did not).
· Kozuszek v. Brewer, 2:05-CV-394 (N.D.Ind. 2007) (holding that the county clerk as a member of the election board may not be liable for damages for "spoiling" an election ballot in the absence of evidence of bad faith).
· Barton v. Safeco Ins. Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100628 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 29, 2009) (holding that accident reconstructionist's opinion was not admissible where expert's methodology was nothing more than speculation and insurer could not be liable for bad faith for denying underinsured motorist claim where there was evidence that the insured caused the accident).
· Young v. Digger Specialties, Inc., 3:09-CV-156 (N.D. Ind. October 5, 2010) (holding that an employer's reasonable expectations of employees' performance changes such that a lack of disciplinary matters does not demonstrate that the motivation for termination of employment was due to anything other than legitimate business concerns related to a down-turn in the economy).