Indiana Court of Appeals: Medical-Malpractice Plaintiff Not Required to Settle with Healthcare Provider for Cap

Indiana Court of Appeals: Medical-Malpractice Plaintiff Not Required to Settle with Healthcare Provider for Cap

This week’s discussion looks to the Indiana Court of Appeals’ decision in Wallen v. Hossler holding that a medical-malpractice plaintiff was free to reject a settlement offer from a healthcare provider that would pay the entire amount up to the cap. In the process, the court preserved the plaintiff’s right to choose trial by jury.

Read More

Indiana Supreme Court Makes Substantial Addition to Wrongful-Death Procedures

Indiana Supreme Court Makes Substantial Addition to Wrongful-Death Procedures

This week’s discussion recaps a handful of notable recent Indiana appellate decisions and delves into the new requirements for wrongful-death estates in Indiana dictated by the Indiana Supreme Court’s ruling in Lewis v. Toliver.

Read More

Indiana Court of Appeals: Fistfights in Parking Lot are Type of Foreseeable “Rowdy Behavior” Sufficient to Make Bar Liable for Injuries to Patrons

Indiana Court of Appeals: Fistfights in Parking Lot are Type of Foreseeable “Rowdy Behavior” Sufficient to Make Bar Liable for Injuries to Patrons

This week, we revisit the question of when a business owes a duty to protect patrons from injuries due to criminal acts of third-parties after the Indiana Court of Appeals held that a bar owes a duty to patrons injured by a fistfight in the parking lot after closing.

Read More

Indiana Supreme Court Holds that Wrongful Death Claim Does Not End With Death of Heirless Sole Beneficiary

Indiana Supreme Court Holds that Wrongful Death Claim Does Not End With Death of Heirless Sole Beneficiary

After a brief recap of seven notable decisions from the Indiana Court of Appeals, we examine the Indiana Supreme Court’s decision in Horejs v. Milford, which held that the claims for loss of consortium by the lone beneficiary of a wrongful-death estate survive the beneficiary’s death and may be pursued by his estate as a survivor action regardless of whether he has a will or natural heirs at law.

Read More

Indiana Court of Appeals Allows Claim Against School for Off-Campus Death of Student to Proceed to Trial

Indiana Court of Appeals Allows Claim Against School for Off-Campus Death of Student to Proceed to Trial

This week we examine the decision Murray v. Indianapolis Public Schools, which allowed claims against a school for the off-campus death of a student. We also briefly discuss two other interesting decisions from the Indiana Court of Appeals, which were handed down this week.

Read More

Indiana Supreme Court: Sexual Assault by Police Officer May be Within Scope of Employment Thereby Exposing Department to Liability

Indiana Supreme Court: Sexual Assault by Police Officer May be Within Scope of Employment Thereby Exposing Department to Liability

In this post, we revisit our discussion from December 1, 2017 of Cox v. Evansville Police Department after the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and held that the common-carrier exception does not apply to sexual assaults by on-duty police officers but that such attacks may be sufficiently within the scope of employment that the general doctrine of respondeat superior provides liability for police departments.

Read More

Indiana Court of Appeals: $1.3M Verdict Not Excessive for Rear-End Collision & Not Reversible Error to Exclude Evidence of Prior Discipline of Medical Expert

Indiana Court of Appeals: $1.3M Verdict Not Excessive for Rear-End Collision & Not Reversible Error to Exclude Evidence of Prior Discipline of Medical Expert

This week we look at Tunstall v. Manning, in which the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a $1.3M verdict for a woman who suffered spinal injuries in a rear-end collision and further ruled that it was not reversible error, if error at all, to exclude evidence of the plaintiff’s medical expert’s prior professional discipline because he was no longer subject to discipline at the time of trial.

Read More

Seventh Circuit Affirms Piercing Corporate Veil to Attach $7.5m Judgment

Seventh Circuit Affirms Piercing Corporate Veil to Attach $7.5m Judgment

Today’s discussion looks at numerous recent cases ranging from the use of unsigned depositions at summary judgment, the possible need to provide details in support of damages calculations for actions sounding in breach of contract, whether Goodwin and Rogers apply to duty analyses beyond premises liability, the grounds for awarding class-action attorney fees, the scope of specific personal jurisdiction under Indiana law, and then take a deeper dive into the Seventh Circuit’s opinion affirming a bankruptcy court’s decision to pierce a corporate veil in order to attach a $7.5m judgment held by a former shareholder against the lone remaining shareholder.

Read More

Indiana Court of Appeals: Developments in Litigation Can Allow Remand for Failure to Meet Amount in Controversy and Recovery in Excess of $75,000

Indiana Court of Appeals: Developments in Litigation Can Allow Remand for Failure to Meet Amount in Controversy and Recovery in Excess of $75,000

Today, we look at a case whose procedural posture may be almost impossible to replicate that resulted in a successful remand motion from federal court in which the plaintiff asserted that the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000 and an appellate court affirming a subsequent state-court jury verdict for $187,500.

Read More

What Happens When Wrongful Death Beneficiary Dies During Lawsuit? Depends on Whether there are Heirs

What Happens When Wrongful Death Beneficiary Dies During Lawsuit? Depends on Whether there are Heirs

The takeaway from this post is that if you are representing a wrongful death estate and the survivor has no natural heir, make sure s/he has a will or the claim will die with the survivor.

Read More

Why Summary Judgment Predicated on Defense of Contributory Negligence is Almost Impossible in Indiana

Why Summary Judgment Predicated on Defense of Contributory Negligence is Almost Impossible in Indiana

Today, we look at the propriety of adjudicating personal injury cases on the basis of a contributory negligence defense at summary judgment through the lens of the new decision in Gonzalez v. Ritz. We also examine the burden on a movant to establish that evidence would certainly not be admissible at trial in order to exclude it at summary judgment.

Read More

Indiana: Who Can Bring Claim for Death of Child When Both Parents Also Die?

Indiana: Who Can Bring Claim for Death of Child When Both Parents Also Die?

In this post, we discuss Parsley v. MGA Family Group, Inc., which held that a grandmother as de facto guardian was not able to pursue a child wrongful death claim for the death of her grandson. After questioning whether the Indiana Court of Appeals reached the right decision, we examine what the procedure is in general to pursue a claim when a child’s custodian is killed alongside the child.

Read More

Indiana: What to Do When Discovering After the Statute of Limitations Expires That the Wrong Party Was Named?

Indiana: What to Do When Discovering After the Statute of Limitations Expires That the Wrong Party Was Named?

This week we look at the decision in Webb v. City of Carmel and look to use of Trial Rule 15(C) for adding a new party after the statute of limitations has expired. We also discuss whether the court of appeals misapplied Indiana’s summary judgment standard in this case, wherein there is no mention whatsoever of the movants’ evidence, only a determination that the non-movant’s evidence was insufficient.

Read More

Did the Indiana Court of Appeals Just Rewrite Trial Rule 75(A)?

Did the Indiana Court of Appeals Just Rewrite Trial Rule 75(A)?

This week, we look at a recent decision from the Indiana Court of Appeals that looks to have established a new, non-textual standard for determining preferred venue in Indiana. In so doing, the opinion looks to have manifested the concerns of Justices Dickson and Rucker in their dissenting opinion to R & D Transport, Inc. v. A.H.

Read More

When Does a Proprietor Owe a Duty to Stop One Patron from Shooting Another? Indiana Court of Appeals Weighs In

When Does a Proprietor Owe a Duty to Stop One Patron from Shooting Another? Indiana Court of Appeals Weighs In

This week we look at the remarkable decision in Hamilton v. Steak'n Shake Operations Inc., which took a deep dive into the analyses of Goodwin v. Yeakle's Sports Bar & Grill and Rogers v. Martin to conclude that a restaurant proprietor owes a duty to take reasonable precautions to protect a "restaurant patron who has been subjected to escalating threats and taunts" from "injury resulting after the encounter culminated in physical violence."

Read More

On First Impression, Indiana Rules Denial of Insurance Coverage Triggers Uninsured Motorist Coverage

On First Impression, Indiana Rules Denial of Insurance Coverage Triggers Uninsured Motorist Coverage

This week's discussion looks to the question of whether a person who causes a car accident and then is subsequently denied coverage for the accident constitutes an “uninsured” so that the injured person may recover against his own insurance policy.

Read More