Steury v. Northern Indiana Public Service Co. ( 1988 )

OPINION ON REHEARING

SULLIVAN, Judge, concurring.

The sole question resolved by our earlier opinion was whether Steury had standing to bring the action against NIPSCO. We, properly I think, answered in the affirmative. We did not decide the extent of Steu-ry's interest in the damaged premises, nor the extent, if any, of Steury's permissible recovery.

As NIPSCO concedes in its Petition for Rehearing, Steury had a standing-conferring interest, at least to the extent of the $100 deductible which was not paid under the insurance policy in question.

Subject to this caveat, I concur in the denial of the Petition for Rehearing.