Justia Indiana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A motorist struck and injured a pedestrian during rush hour. The motorist claimed the pedestrian stepped out from behind a large truck, obstructing her view. Witnesses and investigating officers corroborated the motorist's account, finding no evidence of speeding, reckless driving, or distraction. The pedestrian sued the motorist and her insurer for negligence, and the motorist raised a contributory-negligence defense.The Hamilton Superior Court initially granted the pedestrian's motion to compel the motorist to produce her iPhone for inspection, limited to the hour surrounding the accident. However, the court reversed its decision upon reconsideration, citing significant privacy concerns and lack of evidence suggesting the motorist was using her phone at the time. The court also granted a motion in limine to exclude any discussion of the phone inspection at trial. A jury found the pedestrian 90% at fault, barring recovery under Indiana's contributory-fault standard. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the burden of the proposed phone inspection outweighed its likely benefit given the motorist's privacy concerns.The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the pedestrian's discovery request lacked necessary evidentiary support and was overly broad. The court emphasized that privacy concerns are not a per se bar to discovery but must be balanced against the need for information. The court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to compel, as the pedestrian failed to show that the benefit of inspecting the motorist's phone outweighed her privacy interests. View "Jennings v. Smiley" on Justia Law

Automotive Finance Corporation (AFC) extended a loan to Monmars Automotive Group LLC, which was guaranteed by Meng Liu, her then-husband Ning Ao, and Liu’s friend Xiaoqiao Yang. After Monmars defaulted, AFC sued to recover the debt. Liu, representing herself, filed unsworn letters claiming she did not sign the loan agreement. The trial court granted summary judgment for AFC. Ao later admitted in an unsworn letter to forging Liu’s and Yang’s signatures, but Liu did not file a motion to correct error or appeal properly.The Marion Superior Court set aside the judgment based on fraud under Trial Rule 60(B)(3) after Liu, now represented by counsel, presented Ao’s testimony about the forgery. AFC appealed, and the Indiana Court of Appeals issued conflicting opinions in related cases. In Liu’s case, the court affirmed the trial court’s decision, but in Yang’s case, it reversed.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the trial court abused its discretion in granting relief under Trial Rule 60(B)(3). The court found that Liu could have raised the fraud issue in a timely motion to correct error or on appeal. Additionally, there was no evidence that the alleged fraud prejudiced Liu’s ability to present her case. The court emphasized the importance of finality in judgments and the need for litigants, including those representing themselves, to comply with procedural requirements.The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded the case for reinstatement of summary judgment in favor of AFC. View "Automotive Finance Corporation v. Liu" on Justia Law

In late 2019, a hospital sent letters to over a thousand patients, including Linda Gierek, informing them of potential exposure to infectious diseases due to a technician's failure to fully sterilize surgical instruments. Gierek filed a class-action complaint against the hospital, asserting claims of negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and medical malpractice. She sought class certification for similarly situated patients and their spouses. The trial court consolidated Gierek’s action with a similar class-action claim filed by Cheyanne Bennett.The Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund intervened, arguing that the claims sounded in ordinary negligence and thus the Medical Malpractice Act (MMA) did not apply. The hospital argued the opposite. The trial court ruled in favor of the hospital, stating the MMA applied, and denied the motion for class certification, citing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction while a proposed complaint was pending before a medical-review panel. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the MMA’s applicability but reversed the trial court’s decision on class certification jurisdiction.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the MMA covers all claims for medical malpractice, not limited to bodily injury or death. The court also held that class certification is a proper preliminary determination under the MMA. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for the trial court to consider the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. View "Gierek v. Anonymous 1" on Justia Law

AMW Investments, Inc. and Midwest Entertainment Ventures, Inc. (collectively, AMW) owned and operated an adult-entertainment venue called Theatre X. The Town of Clarksville revoked AMW’s adult-entertainment license in early 2019 due to violations of local ordinances against lewd conduct. AMW sought judicial review of the revocation in the Clark Circuit Court, which led to the Town filing counterclaims and seeking a preliminary injunction to bar AMW from operating Theatre X. The trial court issued the injunction and deferred ruling on fines pending AMW’s appeal of the injunction.The Clark Circuit Court ordered AMW to respond to the Town’s discovery requests, but AMW only objected on jurisdictional grounds, claiming the trial court lacked jurisdiction during the appeal. The trial court found AMW’s objections inexcusable and ordered compliance. AMW continued to object and withhold documents, leading the trial court to find AMW in contempt and impose a $30,000 sanction. AMW appealed the sanction, and the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, holding that AMW’s objections were not waived.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that AMW’s objections were untimely and thus waived. The Court affirmed the trial court’s discovery order and sanction, stating that the trial court did not lose jurisdiction during the appeal and no stay was issued. The Court emphasized that untimely objections are presumptively waived under the trial rules, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to excuse the waiver or in sanctioning AMW for non-compliance. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "AMW Investments Inc. v. The Town of Clarksville" on Justia Law

R.L., a sheriff’s deputy, was charged with driving while intoxicated, but the charges were later dropped. The Indiana Law Enforcement Training Board initiated proceedings to revoke R.L.'s basic-training certificate, which is necessary for his employment as an officer. R.L. sought and obtained a court declaration and injunction preventing the board from disciplining him before the board issued a final decision.The Martin Circuit Court granted R.L.'s request for declaratory and injunctive relief, barring the board from using facts from R.L.'s expunged arrest to revoke his certificate. The board intervened and moved to vacate the order, arguing procedural errors and lack of merit. The trial court vacated its initial order but issued a second similar order. The board appealed, and the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, allowing the board to consider independent evidence of the facts underlying the expunged arrest records.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the trial court erred in granting R.L.'s request for declaratory and injunctive relief. The court emphasized that R.L. must follow the Administrative Orders and Procedures Act (AOPA) to challenge the board's decisions and that he failed to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial intervention. The court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss R.L.'s declaratory-judgment action, reinforcing the necessity of exhausting administrative remedies before seeking judicial review. View "Indiana Law Enforcement Training Board v. R L" on Justia Law

A highway construction project in Johnson County, Indiana, required the widening of State Road 37 and the closure of an intersection at Fairview Road. The State initiated an eminent domain action to acquire a 0.632-acre strip of land from Franciscan Alliance, Inc., and the owners of easement rights over the strip, including The Market Place at State Road 37, LLC, and SCP 2010-C36-018, LLC, contested the action and sought damages due to changes in traffic flow from the intersection closure.The Johnson Superior Court appointed appraisers who valued the land and assessed damages. A jury trial followed, resulting in a verdict awarding $680,000 to Franciscan and $1,500,000 to SCP. The State appealed, arguing that damages for changes in traffic flow were not compensable. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the damages awarded were erroneous under existing caselaw on circuity of travel and traffic flow. Franciscan and SCP petitioned for transfer, which the Indiana Supreme Court granted.The Indiana Supreme Court reaffirmed the rule that when a road-improvement project leaves a property’s access points unchanged, a landowner cannot recover damages from changes in traffic flow, as these do not result from the taking of a property right. The Court held that the State’s construction project did not affect the owners’ access points to their properties, and thus, damages from the intersection closure were not compensable. The Court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded for proceedings to determine the just compensation owed to Franciscan for the 0.632-acre strip of land. View "State v. Franciscan Alliance, Inc." on Justia Law

William Loomis was injured in a two-vehicle accident while driving a truck for his employer, XPO Logistics, Inc. The truck was registered in Indiana and garaged in New York. After recovering the full amount from the other vehicle’s liability insurer, Loomis sought additional recovery from ACE American Insurance Company, XPO’s insurer. ACE denied the claim, stating that the policy did not include underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage in Indiana or New York.Loomis sued ACE in New York state court, alleging breach of the insurance agreement. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. The district court granted Loomis’s motion, applying Indiana law, and concluded that the policy was not exempt from Indiana’s UIM statute. However, the court later granted ACE’s motion for summary judgment, determining that ACE’s obligation to provide UIM coverage was subject to the exhaustion of a $3 million retained limit. Both parties appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified two questions to the Indiana Supreme Court.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the term “commercial excess liability policy” under Indiana law is ambiguous and must be construed in favor of the insured. Therefore, the policy in question is not exempt from the UIM coverage requirements. Additionally, the court found that the phrase “limits of liability” is also ambiguous and must be construed in favor of the insured, meaning that ACE’s statutory obligation to provide UIM coverage is not subject to the $3 million retained limit. The court answered both certified questions in the negative, ruling in favor of Loomis. View "Loomis v. ACE American Insurance Co." on Justia Law

In 2015, American Acceptance Co. sued Timothy Mayberry in small claims court for an unpaid balance of $2,084.48. Mayberry did not respond, leading to a default judgment against him. In 2022, Mayberry, who is incarcerated, moved to set aside the default judgment, claiming he was never served with the complaint or judgment and only learned about it during a prison review. The small claims court denied his motion, deeming it untimely and meritless.Mayberry appealed the decision. However, the trial court clerk failed to file a Notice of Completion of Clerk’s Record by the required deadline, and Mayberry did not move to compel the clerk to file the notice. Consequently, the Indiana Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal sua sponte based on Appellate Rule 10(F), which states that failure to move to compel the clerk “shall subject the appeal to dismissal.” Mayberry’s subsequent motion to correct the error was denied by a divided motions panel.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the phrase “shall subject the appeal to dismissal” grants appellate courts discretion to dismiss an appeal but does not mandate dismissal. The court emphasized that cases should be decided on their merits rather than minor procedural violations unless the appellant acts in bad faith, the violation is egregious, or the appellee is prejudiced. Finding no sufficient basis for dismissal under these criteria, the Indiana Supreme Court vacated the dismissal and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. View "Mayberry v. American Acceptance Co LLC" on Justia Law

Perdue Farms operates a poultry-processing plant in Indiana. In August 2018, an L&B Transport driver mistakenly delivered aluminum chloride instead of bleach, causing a chemical reaction that damaged the plant. Perdue sued L&B Transport, its driver, U.S. Security Associates, and three security guards employed by U.S. Security, seeking over $1.2 million in damages. The security-service contract between Perdue and U.S. Security included a forum-selection clause designating Maryland federal court as the venue for disputes.The Daviess Circuit Court dismissed Perdue’s claims against U.S. Security and its employees, citing the forum-selection clause. Perdue appealed, arguing the clause was unenforceable and did not apply to the employees. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, holding the clause unenforceable due to the potential for multiple lawsuits in different jurisdictions. A dissenting judge argued that Perdue, as a sophisticated entity, should adhere to its contractual agreement.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the forum-selection clause is enforceable against U.S. Security, requiring Perdue to litigate those claims in Maryland federal court. However, the court found that the clause does not apply to the individual employees, as they were not parties to the contract and not in privity with U.S. Security. The court rejected the argument that the employees' duties under the contract made them subject to the forum-selection clause.The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of claims against U.S. Security for improper venue but reversed the dismissal of claims against the individual employees. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Perdue Farms Inc. v. L & B Transport, LLC" on Justia Law

In June 2020, a fire broke out at a warehouse in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Richard Dolsen, a professional firefighter, responded to the scene. While navigating through the smoke-filled, dark warehouse, Dolsen fell through an unguarded opening above a basement stairwell, sustaining injuries to his neck and right arm. The warehouse was owned by Sweet Real Estate – City Center, LLC, and leased to VeoRide, Inc., which stored electric scooters and other equipment on the premises. Dolsen sued both companies, alleging negligence in failing to fix the wall opening and in failing to warn the fire department of the hazard.The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of VeoRide and Sweet, holding that Dolsen's claims were barred under the firefighter's rule, which limits a firefighter's ability to recover damages for injuries sustained while responding to a fire. Dolsen appealed the ruling only as to VeoRide, and the court of appeals reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the firefighter's rule did not bar Dolsen's claim against VeoRide.The Indiana Supreme Court granted VeoRide's petition to transfer the case. The court clarified that the firefighter's rule and the first-responder's rule are two separate doctrines. The firefighter's rule applies only to firefighters and prescribes the duty owed for a premises-liability claim arising when a firefighter enters premises to extinguish a fire. The first-responder's rule limits the duty owed to all first responders during an emergency.In this case, the court held that the first-responder's rule did not bar Dolsen's claim as he did not allege that the negligence that caused his injuries also caused the fire. As for the firefighter's rule, the court found that disputed factual issues remained on whether VeoRide breached its duty to Dolsen. Therefore, the court reversed the trial court's entry of summary judgment for VeoRide and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Dolsen v. Veoride, Inc." on Justia Law