Indiana Contract Law

by Steven M. Badger 

A deal is a deal, right?  That is not always true when the deal is a fee agreement between a lawyer and a client.  With interest in alternative fee arrangements growing among lawyers and clients, Indiana law firms should keep in mind that their fee agreements remain subject to scrutiny of the Indiana Supreme Court. 

A recent disciplinary decision of the Indiana Supreme Court teaches Indiana lawyers two lessons about non-hourly fee arrangements:  First, a deal is most definitely NOT a deal when a lawyer would obtain an unconscionable windfall.  Second, a lawyer may be required to renegotiate a fee agreement that would otherwise produce an unconscionable benefit for the lawyer.

In In re Everett E. Powell, II, No. 49S00-0910-DI-426, the Indiana Supreme Court suspended a lawyer for charging an unreasonable contingent fee. The client, T.G., engaged Powell to seek the removal of a trustee of a trust established for T.G.'s benefit.  The trust was put in place by T.G.'s first lawyer, Ross, to hold the proceeds of a personal injury settlement for T.G.  The trust was created to keep T.G. (and her domineering partner) from quickly wasting the settlement proceeds, about $42,000.  Ross was the trustee (because he could not find another qualified person to do it) and had refused T.G.'s earlier, repeated demands for the money in the trust. 

When Powell contacted Ross, he readily agreed to resign as trustee and handover those duties to Powell.  Soon after he became successor trustee, Powell withdrew the trust funds, paid two-thirds of the funds to T.G., and kept his one-third contingent fee.  As a result, Powell received a contingent fee of over $14,000 for 15 hours of work.

In his disciplinary case, Powell argued his contingent fee was reasonable considering the client was a "difficult" one, there was a heightened threat of a future malpractice suit, and there was uncertainty at the time the fee agreement was made both about the amount of funds left in the trust and whether Ross would resist giving up control of the trust.  The Court rejected that argument.  The Court observed that Powell learned very quickly the amount left in the trust and Ross' willingness to step aside as trustee.  The Court stated:

We do not suggest that a contingent fee must be reduced every time a case turns out to be easier or more lucrative than contemplated by the parties at the outset.  But collection of a fee under the original agreement is unreasonable when it gives the attorney an unconscionable windfall under the totality of the circumstances.  On the evidence before us in this case, we conclude that Respondent violated the Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 1.5(a) by collecting a fee that was clearly excessive and unreasonable under the totality of the circumstances.

The vulnerability of the client in Powell was certainly an important aspect of the case that would distinguish it from one involving a sophisticated client.  Yet, Powell is an important reminder for Indiana attorneys to think twice before keeping a contingent fee that is grossly disproportionate to the amount of work performed.

Maintaining medical records for a patient is within the scope of the Medical Malpractice Act. The Medical Malpractice Act generally requires that actions for medical negligence against health care providers must first be submitted to, and an opinion given by, a medical review panel before commencing an action in court.

In Howard Regional Health System, et al. v. Jacob Gordon, et al. , et al. No. 34S02-1009-CV-476, the plaintiff sought damages and moved for partial summary judgment for spoliation against a hospital for lost medical records. The trail court granted partial summary judgment by concluding that the defendant had a duty to maintain the records and their failure to maintain these records breached that duty under Indiana code section 16-3-7-1. The hospital appealed, arguing that maintaining medical records is within the purview of Medical Malpractice Act and thus a medical review panel must give is opinion before an action against the hospital may commence.

The Indiana Supreme Court reasoned that ongoing maintenance of test and treatment records bears strongly on subsequent treatment and diagnosis of patients. It is a part of what patients expect from health care providers. Thus, maintaining medical records falls inside within the scope of the Act and is considered a part of the practice of medicine. The Supreme Court also rejected the plaintiff's argument that it was asserting a third-party spoliation cliam, instead finding that the plaintiff's claim was essentially a first-party spoliation claim that is disallowed under Indiana law.

In an opinion dissenting in part and concurring in part, Judge Dickson was dissatisfied with the court’s view that the maintenance of medical records claim should be governed by the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act. Rather, the maintenance of records does not involve any exercise of professional medical judgment and thus should not be subject to the act.

What if after a jury verdict was established one of the parties tries to impeach that verdict with testimony or an affidavit of the jurors who returned it? The Court of Appeals recently addressed this issue and stated that it has long been established in Indiana law that the jury’s verdict cannot be impeached by testimony or from an affidavit of a juror who returned it.

In Martha Sienkowski v. Frederick E. Verschuure No. 46A03-1101-CT-5, after the jury verdict was announced, the plaintiff tried to impeach that verdict with testimony of one juror and an affidavit from another juror in an attempt to receive a new trial. The defendant filed a motion to vacate the judgment and the request for a new trial. The trial court issued its Order, granting the defendant’s motions to strike the letter and affidavit and denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. The plaintiff appealed.

 The Court of Appeals reiterated that the jury verdict may not be impeached by the testimony or an affidavit of the juror who returned it. The policy behind this rule comes from Stinson v. State, 313 N.E.2d 699 (Ind. 1974). In Stinson, the Supreme Court showed concern by saying; “If this [c]ourt were to permit individual jurors to make affidavits or give testimony disclosing the manner of deliberation in the jury room and their version of the reasons for rendering a particular verdict, there would be no reasonable end to litigation. Jurors would be harassed by both sides of litigation and find themselves in a contest of affidavits and counter-affidavits and arguments and re-arguments as to why and how a certain verdict was reached. Such an unsettled state of affairs would be a disservice to the parties litigant and an unconscionable burden upon citizens who serve on juries.” The court did recognize exceptions under the Indiana Evidence Rule 606(b) where a juror may testify with respect to certain aspects of the trial. The three exceptions where testimony would be allowed concern: (1) drug or alcohol use by any juror, (2) the question of whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury’s attention, or (3) whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror. None of those exceptions were present in this case.

In a decision handed down earlier this month, the Supreme Court refused to give a ruling on an issue that was described as being “within the special expertise of the Tax Court.” The decision comes from a rehearing of an earlier case holding that capital contributions are not automatically exempt from Indiana’s use tax.

In Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue v. Belterra Resort Indiana, LLC, No. 49S10-1010-TA-519, the Department of Revenue imposed a use tax of almost $2 million on Belterra due to its acquisition of a riverboat from its parent company. Belterra argued that the acquisition counts as a capital contribution, which the Department has ruled in the past as not subject to the tax. The court used what is called the “step transaction” doctrine to find that the acquisition constituted a retail transaction and was subject to the tax penalty. Belterra sought rehearing of that decision, arguing that, even if they were subject to the penalty, they shouldn’t have to pay because Indiana law says that a penalty for failure to pay taxes is waivable if the failure to pay is the result of a reasonably held belief that payment isn’t necessary.

The court said that that “the Indiana Tax Court was established to develop and apply specialized expertise in the prompt, fair, and uniform resolution of state tax cases” and that it “extends cautious deference” to decisions that should fall within such expertise. The court remanded the case to the Tax court to resolve the issues of whether or not Belterra exhausted all of its administrative remedies, whether they are subject to the tax, and if the penalty should be paid.

In a case involving the determination of work bonuses being paid as “wages” under Indiana law, the Indiana Court of Appeals held that in circumstances where the bonuses are not related to the amount of time an employee works, are not guaranteed to be paid regularly, and are not granted based on the employer’s financial success, the bonuses do not fall under the wage classification for purposes of Indiana statutes.

While Orlando Quezare was employed as a collections account representative for Byrider Finance, Inc., his employment agreement called for bonus payments if certain percentages were met, each week, regarding the amount of delinquency on his accounts and also if his team of account reps met certain goals.  After he was terminated, Quezare sued Byrider, alleging that the company violated Indiana law by failing to make wage payments within ten business days of the pay period ending date.  Bose McKinney & Evans attorneys Gregory Guevara and Emily Yates argued successfully that the bonus payments did not constitute wages under the statute.

In the opinion of Quezare v. Byrider Finance, Inc., the Court of Appeals held that, in order for bonus payments to be considered wages under Indiana law, the payments must be directly related to the amount of time an employee works, must be paid to the employee with regularity, and cannot be tied to the financial success of the employer.  Because Quezare’s bonuses were tied only to his individual success, were never guaranteed, and also because Indiana case law doesn’t consider team bonuses to be wages, Byrider was not in violation of Indiana law.

The Indiana Supreme Court recently held that, in an insurance dispute regarding defense and indemnification of environmental liability, the uniform approach (a single state’s law governing the entire contract) should be applied, and the state with the “most intimate contacts” will have its law pertain to the contract.

Standard Fusee Corporation (“SFC”) previously operated factories manufacturing emergency signaling flares in Maryland, Indiana, New Jersey, Ohio, California and Pennsylvania while maintaining its headquarters in Maryland. SFC purchased comprehensive general liability policies from two different brokers, holding all communication and discussions regarding the policies in Maryland. After a toxic chemical used in manufacturing its flares was detected in the groundwater near its California facility, SFC was subject to lawsuits which were eventually dismissed because it was determined that SFC didn’t emit the chemical. Afterwards, it voluntarily tested its Indiana facility and found that the chemical may have been emitted at the Indiana location. SFC was granted inclusion into the Indiana Department of Environmental Management’s Voluntary Remediation Program. SFC requested defense and indemnification from the insurers, who denied an obligation. 

SFC sought a declaratory judgment against the insurers and filed for summary judgment that Indiana law governed the policy’s interpretation and also that the insurers had a duty to defend, which the trial court granted. The insurers sought application of Maryland law, as its interpretation would be more beneficial to their position. The Court of Appeals sided with neither party and reversed the trial court’s holding, determining that a site-specific approach should apply to the policy. In National Union Fire Insurance Co. v. Standard Fusee Corporation, No. 49S04-1006-CV-318, the Indiana Supreme Court held that Indiana has long applied the uniform approach to multistate insurance policies. The Court went on to hold that, in order to determine which state’s law governed the contract, a “most intimate contacts” test should be used. Because a single event is not determinative as to which state has the most intimate contacts with the transaction, several factors must be weighed together. Because SFC was located in Maryland, all of the correspondence regarding the insurance took place in Maryland, and because the policies were retained and the premiums were paid in Maryland, the Court held that Maryland law should uniformly apply to the dispute.

           Our First Amendment right to express ourselves is one of our most cherished freedoms.  It is a right that is sometimes abused, but the law provides free expression ample breathing space to avoid stifling that right.

            The Indiana Supreme Court and the Indiana Court of Appeals recently addressed freedom of expression in two cases where it was claimed that speakers abused their free speech rights by making defamatory misstatements that harmed another person.

            In Dugan v. Mittal Steel USA Inc., No. 45S05-1002-CV-121 (June 17, 2010), the Indiana Supreme Court concluded that certain defamatory statements made about an employee during an employer’s investigation of the disappearance of company equipment were protected by a qualified privilege and therefore not a basis for the employee’s defamation claim.  Indiana law recognizes a “privilege” or legal protection in certain circumstances where it is particularly important as a matter of public policy to encourage speech.  When such a privilege applies, speakers are liable for defamation only if they knew their statement was false or had substantial doubt about the truth of the statement.

            In Dugan, an employee claimed she was defamed by a supervisor who told the company’s chief of security that the employee had defrauded the company and stolen its equipment.  The Supreme Court had no difficulty finding that the statements were defamatory per se, because they accused the employee of criminal conduct.  However, the Court recognized that the supervisor had a duty to cooperate with his company’s investigation of theft and report what he knew or heard to his employer.  It is sound public policy to encourage such communications and therefore Indiana law applies a privilege to protect and encourage those communications.

The employee argued that the supervisor’s statements should not be protected because they were based only on second-hand information he had received from others, rather than his direct, personal observation.  The Indiana Supreme Court expressly rejected that argument. The Court explained:

“It is unreasonable and contrary to sound policy for the common interest qualified privilege for intra-company communications about theft of company property to apply only for statements made on personal knowledge and to exclude the reporting of information received from others.”

It is not hard to imagine how an intra-company investigation of theft would be hampered if employees were not encouraged to report everything they knew or heard that could assist the investigation.   Application of the qualified privilege does not depend on the source of the speaker’s information, but rather whether the speaker “lacked any grounds for belief as to the truth of the statements.”

The Indiana Court of Appeals opinion in In re Paternity of K.D., No. 49A02-0907-JV-693 (June 29, 2010) addressed a different problem – under what circumstances may a Court order a person to refrain from speaking about a particular subject.  Government bans on speech are referred to as “prior restraints” because they seek to stop or silence people before they have expressed themselves.  Prior restraints are rarely appropriate under the First Amendment because they are in effect government censorship of expression.

In K.D., the court faced a harrowing situation involving allegations by a mother that her daughter had been sexually abused by her father.  The case involved a paternity action brought before the juvenile court.  Two different judges on two different occasions found the mother’s allegations of abuse against the father to be unsubstantiated.  After the second time the court rejected the mother’s allegations of abuse, she took her story to the press.  The mother repeated her allegations in a series of newspapers and harshly criticized the father's lawyer and the judges who handled the case.

In response to the articles, the father asked the court to find the mother in contempt for allegedly violating Indiana juvenile law by discussing the proceedings with the press.  The Indiana juvenile court declined to hold the mother in contempt, but the court did expressly bar the mother from talking any further with the news media or anyone else about the case.  The mother appealed from that order.

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the order as an overbroad and invalid prior restraint.  In doing so, the Court of Appeals applied the well-established First Amendment rule that:  “Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to the court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.”  That rule was established in the famous “Pentagon Papers” case in which the United States Supreme Court struck down a court order prohibiting the New York Times from reporting information received from an informant about a top secret Defense Department study about the Viet Nam War.  New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971).

"Jetson, You're Fired!"

            Indiana is an “employment at will” state, i.e. generally, employment may be terminated by the employer or employee at will, with or without reason. The Indiana Supreme Court has recognized only three exceptions to this doctrine. In Baker v. Tremco, Inc., Cause No. 29S02-0902-cv-00065, the Court extended the second exception, which rests on retaliatory discharge.

            Baker believed that one of Tremco’s suppliers was overcharging schools for their products and services. Baker claims that he was forced to resign because of his refusal to sell these products, and sued Tremco for breach of contract/wrongful termination.

            In McClanahan v. Remington Freight Lines, Inc., 517 N.E.2d 390, 428 (Ind. 1988), the Court had found a public policy exception to the employment at will doctrine “when an employee is discharged solely for exercising a statutorily conferred right.” The Court went on to state “firing an employee for refusing to commit an illegal act for which he would be personally liable is as much a violation of public policy declared by the legislature as firing an employee for filing a workmen’s compensation claim.” Id. at 392-93 (emphasis added).

            In Baker, the Indiana Supreme Court extended this exception to include instances where an employee is not fired – but is constructively discharged from his employment for refusing to participate in illegal activity. The Court stated: “Depending on the facts, it is merely retaliatory discharge in reverse.” Despite the extended exception, the Court held that Baker’s facts did not fall within the ambit of the exception because the alleged overpricing did not, as a matter of law, contravene the public bidding statutes.

The Indiana Law Review recently published a law review article co-authored by Bryan H. Babb and Kellie M. Barr regarding developments in Indiana appellate procedure during 2008.  The article summarizes rule amendments, examines appellate court opinions affecting appellate procedure, and synthesizes case law to provide tips for practitioners to improve their appellate practice.  The Indiana Law Review publishes an annual survey about developments in Indiana law, and Bryan and Kellie have been asked to co-author the appellate procedure article again next year.

By George T. Patton, Jr. and Kellie M. Barr

      In May, the Indiana Supreme Court issued six civil opinions and granted transfer in two civil appeals. The Indiana Court of Appeals issued twenty-three published civil opinions, seven of which are briefly summarized in this column. The full text of each decision is available via Casemaker at www.inbar.org.    
 

INDIANA SUPREME COURT

Dispute between Internet marketing firm and company for website design is not for "goods and services" pursuant to Indiana's Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code and, under the facts of this case, the company could not sustain conversion claim for website's removal

      The Indiana Supreme Court tackled numerous issues of first impression to resolve a dispute between a company and an Internet marketing firm that created and hosted the company's website.  Conwell v. Gray Loon Outdoor Mktg. Group, Inc., 906 N.E.2d 805 (Ind. 2009). Although the parties fulfilled their obligations under their written agreement, the company later refused to pay for hosting fees and additional changes it requested to the website. The marketing firm sued the company for payment, and the company counterclaimed that the marketing firm committed conversion by taking down the original website for which the company had already paid.

      The Supreme Court first addressed whether Article 2 of Indiana's Uniform Commercial Code ("U.C.C.") or common law principles of contract law governed the parties' transaction. By applying the "predominant thrust" test to determine whether the transaction involved the transfer of goods or the performance of service, the Court held that "[a] website created under arrangements calling for the designer to fashion, program, and host its operations on the designer's server is neither tangible nor moveable in the conventional sense." Id. at 812. Because agreement of the parties "contemplated a custom design for a single customer and an ongoing hosting relationship[,]" the U.C.C. did not apply. Id.

      The Court examined the marketing firm's claim for payment under common law principles and determined that although the website modifications were not contemplated by the parties' original agreement, the company requested the changes without inquiring into the amount the changes would cost. The marketing firm's invoice was the only evidence submitted to the trial court regarding the reasonableness of the charges, and there was evidence that a representative of the company accepted the price after receiving the invoice. Because there was no evidence that the marketing firm "participated in an unconscionable effort to 'strong arm' [the company] into paying an unreasonable fee," the Court affirmed the trial court's decision to enforce the parties' agreement, even though the marketing firm had not provided a cost estimate. Id. at 813.

      Turning to the company's counterclaim that the marketing firm committed conversion by taking down the website for which the company paid, the Court analyzed how copyright law affected the legal status of the website. For the company's counterclaim to succeed, the website either had to be a "work made for hire" where the company was the original owner or the marketing firm had to have transferred ownership of the website to the company. The Court determined that the website was not a work made for hire because the marketing firm was an independent contractor, not the company's employee. The Court also concluded that language in the marketing firm's proposal that the company inherently owned the product was insufficient to transfer ownership of the website from the marketing firm to the company. The marketing firm did, however, have a nonexclusive license because the "parties intended to transfer a copyright, but failed to do so in writing." Id. at 816. Because a nonexclusive license is not an ownership interest under copyright law, however, the marketing firm did not commit conversion by removing the website, and the company's counterclaim failed.

      Concurring in result, Justice Boehm wrote separately to explain that, in his view, a website is "property" for the purposes of tortious or criminal conversion. Id. at 817. Although the company was a licensee that could not sustain a conversion claim, Justice Boehm emphasized that licensees are not without remedy. In this case, the marketing firm arguably "created the problem that the licensed code no longer existed" and "had no right to seize both phases [of the website design] as collateral for its unpaid work on the second phase." Id. 818-19. Although the company's damages were "a matter of speculation on this record," Justice Boehm noted that the company could have asserted breach of license as either an affirmative defense or set-off. Because it did not, he concurred with the majority's result.

Evidence of discounted payments healthcare providers accept from insurance carriers on behalf of injured plaintiffs can be introduced into evidence to determine the reasonable value of the services to the extent it can be done without referencing insurance

      The Indiana Supreme Court confronted "the question of how to determine the reasonable value of medical services when an injured plaintiff's medical treatment is paid from a collateral source at a discounted rate." Stanley v. Walker, 906 N.E.2d 852, 855 (Ind. 2009). In an opinion authored by Justice Sullivan, the Court held that evidence of a healthcare provider's acceptance of a reduced amount of compensation for services provided to a plaintiff may be introduced to help a jury determine the reasonable value of the services "[t]o the extent the discounted amounts may be introduced without referencing insurance." Id. at 853. The Court analyzed Indiana Rule of Evidence 413 and the "complexities of health care pricing structures[, which] make it difficult to determine whether the amount paid, the amount billed, or an amount in between represents the reasonable value of medical services." Id. at 857. Ultimately, the Court held that Indiana's collateral source statute does not bar evidence of discounted payments accepted by healthcare providers to determine the reasonable value of services. "Given the current state of the health care pricing system where . . . authorities suggest that a medical provider's billed charges do not equate to cost, the jury may well need the amount of the payments, amounts billed by medical providers, and other relevant and admissible evidence to be able to determine the amount of reasonable medical expenses." Id. at 858. 

      Justice Dickson authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Rucker, arguing that the majority's rule "contravenes the express requirements of the collateral source statute." Id. at 860 (citing Ind. Code § 34-44-1-2). The dissent also disagreed that the collateral source statute abrogated the common law collateral source rule because "the statute's precise language appears to create a limited exception to the common law rule, which is otherwise left intact." Id. at 862. "Under today's new rule, the existence and extent of any improvement to the accuracy of verdicts seems overwhelmed by the significant probability of incompleteness, confusion, and resulting unfairness, all further compounded by detrimental effects on the fairness and efficient administration of justice." Id. at 865.

      Justice Boehm, joined by Chief Justice Shepard, wrote separately to respond to points made by the dissent and emphasized that "we hold today only that the discounted price actually paid for medical services is admissible evidence as to the reasonable value of those services. We do not hold that it is conclusive." Id. at 859.

Although claim against mother's estate was timely, daughter failed to rebut presumption that services rendered to her incapacitated mother were gratuitous because no evidence that daughter had an express or implied contract with mother's guardian

      The Indiana Supreme Court unanimously reversed the trial court's denial of an estate's motion for summary judgment on a daughter's claim against her mother's estate for reimbursement for various expenses and personal services that the daughter rendered to her mother while the mother was subject to a guardianship. Estate of Prickett v. Womersley, 905 N.E.2d 1008 (Ind. 2009). First, the Court addressed the Estate's argument that the daughter's reimbursement claim was time-barred because she had not filed her claim in the guardianship proceeding. Interpreting the Guardianship Code, the Court held that Indiana Code § 29-3-10-1(d) does not require a claim to be filed against the guardianship estate and "in the absence of legislative direction mandating a guardian's approval, we are apprehensive of the administrative and other practical consequences of ordering a guardian's review of all claims filed in a probate estate that accrue during a decedent's guardianship." Id. at 1012. Therefore, the daughter's claim for reimbursement was not time-barred because she was not required to pursue it in the guardianship proceeding and she properly filed it against her mother's estate.

      The Court reaffirmed the rebuttable presumption that services rendered by a family member are gratuitous. Although the daughter designated evidence that her mother signed a statement in front of two witnesses that she wanted her estate to compensate her daughter for her services, the Court held that the mother could not enter into a contract at the time she executed the statement and, consequently, "when the provider is a family member the implied contract must exist between that person and the incapacitated person's guardian." Id. at 1013. Because the daughter failed to produce evidence that she had an express or implied contract with her mother's guardian, she failed to rebut the presumption that her services were gratuitous as a matter of law.

An insurance company's policy was consistent with Indiana's uninsured motorist statute and insureds were not entitled to uninsured motorist benefits for the death of their unmarried adult son because they did not suffer bodily injury

      The Indiana Supreme Court unanimously held that named insureds who brought an action against their automobile insurer to recover uninsured motorist benefits for the death of their unmarried adult son were not persons "legally entitled to recover damages" for their son's death. Bush v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 905 N.E.2d 1003, 1008 (Ind. 2009). For purposes of its uninsured motorist coverage, the parents' insurance policy defined "insured" to include the named insureds and their relatives, which were defined as related persons primarily residing with the named insureds. Because their adult son no longer lived with his parents, he was not an insured under his parents' policy.

      The insured parents argued that they were entitled to uninsured motorist benefits because their policy was inconsistent with Indiana's uninsured motorist statute-Indiana Code § 27-7-5-2-and, thus, unenforceable. The Court disagreed and emphasized that "the statute itself makes clear that it contemplates uninsured motorist coverage only for the 'insured's' bodily injury." Id. at 1005. The insurance company's policy was "consistent with the uninsured motorist statute by requiring that the insured sustain bodily injury to trigger uninsured motorist coverage." Id. Reaffirming a previous holding, the Court held that the definition of bodily injury includes emotional distress "only if it arises from a bodily touching." Id. (citing State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Jakupko, 881 N.E.2d 654 (Ind. 2008)). "Indiana's uninsured motorist statute requires coverage only for bodily injuries sustained by an insured." Bush, 905 N.E.2d at 1007-08. Because the parents did not suffer bodily injury, they did not have uninsured motorist coverage for their adult son's death.

For purposes of the Family and Medical Leave Act, the 1250-hour requirement applies to an employee's overall service, not service in any particular position, and a trial court's exercise of equitable jurisdiction to award an employee front pay had to be discounted to reflect present day value

      The Indiana Supreme Court addressed issues of first impression surrounding a full-time teacher, part-time football coach's claims against his school corporation employer under the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"). Gary Cmty. School Corp. v. Powell, 906 N.E.2d 823 (Ind. 2009). Although the school reinstated the employee to his full-time teaching position after his medical leave, it did not reinstate him to his head coaching position. Additionally, the school rejected him as head football coach in subsequent years, which the teacher argued was retaliatory conduct for comments he made to a local newspaper regarding the school's failure to restore him to his coaching position following his medical leave.

      The Court held as an issue of first impression that "an employee filling multiple positions with the same employer is eligible for FMLA leave as to all positions if that employee has completed 1,250 total hours of service to that employer in the twelve months preceding the request for leave." Id. at 828. As the Court noted, "the test for [FMLA] eligibility is phrased in terms of 'hours of service' to an 'employer,' not service in any particular position." Id. Therefore, because the 1,250-hour requirement applies to an employee's overall service, the school corporation was required to reinstate the employee to both the full-time teaching position and the part-time coaching position. Additionally, the Court concluded that the employee presented sufficient evidence to support the jury's conclusion that the school corporation retaliated against him for voicing his complaints to a local newspaper, which were not permissible grounds for retaliation under FMLA.

      The school corporation presented numerous arguments challenging the trial court's award of damages. As an issue of first impression, the Court concluded that although the trial court did not abuse its discretion by exercising equity jurisdiction and awarding front pay, "front pay should be discounted to present value. Without discounting, [the employee] would receive a windfall in the form of the use of the money years before it would have been earned." Id. at 834. The Court remanded the action to the trial court to discount the front pay award to present day value, but otherwise affirmed the trial court in all respects.

Employees' damages award for backpay after employer's violation of Indiana Civil Rights Act should not have been reduced by amount of unemployment benefits received

      Two employees filed a complaint with the Michigan City Human Rights Commission ("Commission"), alleging that their employer violated the Indiana Civil Rights Act when it discriminated against them on the basis of race and terminated them for timecard fraud. Filter Specialists, Inc. v. Brooks, 906 N.E.2d 835 (Ind. 2009). The Commission concluded that race was the motivating factor behind the firings and awarded the employees damages for backpay and fringe benefits. The Indiana Supreme Court concluded that the employees proved their claim even though they did not introduce evidence of the ordinance establishing the Commission because the ordinance "has no bearing on whether [the employer] discharged [the employees] on the basis of race in violation of the Indiana Civil Rights Act." Id. at 845. Additionally, the employees presented substantial evidence to support the Commission's conclusion that they had suffered unlawful discrimination, even though there was "no smoking gun" regarding the employer's mental processes. Id. at 848.

      Regarding damages, the Court agreed with a majority of federal circuit courts that "unemployment benefits should not be deducted from backpay awards in discrimination cases." Id. at 849. Consequently, the trial court erred by ordering the case remanded to the Commission because "the damages awarded to [the employees] should not have been affected by their receipt of unemployment compensation." Id. at 850.

INDIANA COURT OF APPEALS

> Father had independent cause of action against Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund for negligent infliction of emotional distress after he witnessed the death of his son, which was caused by the negligent conduct of healthcare providers. Ind. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Patrick, 906 N.E.2d 194 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).

> Oral findings and conclusions that are "thoroughly detailed in the record" satisfy the purpose of special findings under Indiana Trial Rule 52(A). Nunn Law Office v. Rosenthal, 905 N.E.2d 513 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). Additionally, an attorney employed under a contingency fee contract who is discharged prior to occurrence of the contingency is limited to quantum meruit recovery. 

> Trial court should have granted party's request for a hearing on motion to change venue pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 75(A) because of conflicting evidence and the lack of evidence regarding the location of plaintiff's principle office. Painters Dist. Council 91 v. Calvert Enter. Electronic Servs., Inc., 906 N.E.2d 254 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).

> The Indiana Motor Vehicle Protection Act, commonly known as the Lemon Law, "obligates a consumer to demonstrate that the vehicle was subject to repair at least four times and that the same defective condition remained unresolved after the fourth attempt." Metro Health Profs., Inc. v. Chrysler, LLC, 905 N.E.2d 1026, 1033 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). Once a consumer has met the four-repair requirement and files a claim shortly after the fourth attempt, as a matter of law, the automobile manufacturer is obligated to either refund the amount the buyer paid or provide a replacement vehicle of comparable value.

> Employee's claim against political subdivision employer is governed by the three-year statute of limitations contained in the Federal Employers' Liability Act instead of the two-year statute of limitations governing Indiana personal injury claims. Januchowski v. N. Ind. Commuter Trans. Dist., 905 N.E.2d 1041 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).

> Bureau of Motor Vehicles' policy of revoking driving privileges after class members whose recorded personal information did not match information on file with the Social Security Administration violated federal due process because the BMV failed to articulate ascertainable standards for current identification holders. Leone v. Ind. Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 906 N.E.2d 172 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). The policy did, however, have the rational basis of preventing identity theft, and the trial court properly denied the class members' request for a preliminary injunction because the class failed to show an injunction would be in the public interest. 

> Jim Mansfield was initially declared the winner of the Muncie mayoral election but his opponent, Sharon McShurley, was declared the winner after a recount. Mansfield v. McShurley, --- N.E.2d ---, No. 18A02-0804-CV-375 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). The trial court dismissed Mansfield's statutory challenge to the election as well as his amended complaint asserting a quo warranto action. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that a statutory contest action "may not be brought outside the statutorily prescribed time frames even if, as in the case before [the Court of Appeals], the election result changes by virtue of a recount." Additionally, the trial court did not err by dismissing the quo warranto complaint because the recount commission did not act unlawfully by declining to count certain absentee ballots.

TRANSFER ORDERS

> Babes Showclub v. Lair, 901 N.E.2d 44 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (whether a police officer's claims for injuries he suffered responding to a complaint on the club's premises were barred by the Fireman's Rule), transfer granted on May 7, 2009.

> Ind. Family & Soc. Servs. Admin. v. Meyer, 900 N.E.2d 74 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (whether the trial court had discretion to respond to procedural error by granting a belated extension of time), transfer granted on May 14, 2009.

      George T. Patton, Jr., is a partner at Bose McKinney & Evans LLP, Indianapolis/Washington, D.C. and co-chair of its Appellate Group. He was the first chair of the ISBA Appellate Practice Section, served as an Adjunct Assistant Professor of Appellate Advocacy and Procedure at the Indiana University School of Law-Bloomington for five years, and has written four articles on recent developments in Indiana appellate procedure for the Indiana Law Review. George's book on the 2001 Indiana Appellate Rules is 24 Indiana Practice-Appellate Procedure (3d Ed. West Publishing Co. 2001 & 2006 Supp.). 

      Kellie M. Barr is an associate at Bose McKinney & Evans LLP, Indianapolis, and works on business, commercial, and appellate litigation. Upon graduating from the Indiana University School of Law-Bloomington, Kellie served as a law clerk to Chief Judge John G. Baker at the Indiana Court of Appeals. Kellie is the co-author of an article on recent developments in Indiana appellate procedure to be published in the Indiana Law Review later this year.

By Steven M. Badger

Whether a law suit involves a zoning dispute, property appeal or business litigation question, the Indiana law firm handling the matter must be familiar with the unique procedural aspects of Indiana law.  Two decisions issued this week by the Indiana Appellate Courts focus on questions of Indiana procedure when a property owner initiates a court challenge to a decision by a local Board of Zoning Appeals.
 
In Thomas v. Blackford County Area Board of Zoning Appeals and Oolman Dairy, LLC, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's conclusion that Thomas, a property owner who remonstrated against locating a confined animal feeding operation one-third of a mile from Remonstrator Thomas' property, failed to show she had standing to challenge a Board of Zoning Appeals' ("BZA's") decision granting a special exception for the feeding operation. 
 
The standing question itself and the Indiana Supreme Court's affirmance of the trial court's findings are neither novel nor surprising to an Indiana appellate lawyer.  The interesting aspect of the decision is the Supreme Court's approval of the procedure followed by the trial court to reach the result.
 
The question of Thomas' standing was first raised by the owner of the feed operation in a motion to dismiss under Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6).   The trial court correctly denied that motion because it was based on matters outside the four corners of the Complaint.  The trial court, nevertheless, held an evidentiary hearing on the question of whether Thomas had standing as an aggrieved party.  Based on the testimony and evidence at the hearing (principally relating to the impact of the feeding operation on the value of Thomas' property), the trial court determined that Thomas failed to establish she had standing to challenge the BZA's decision.

The decision was first reviewed by the Indiana Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court's decision.  The Court of Appeals reasoned that the trial court should have treated the Motion to Dismiss as a Motion for Summary Judgment.  See Ind. Trial Rule 12(B) (when "matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court" on a motion under Rule 12(B)(6), "the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56.").  That procedural determination by the Court of Appeals was outcome determinative because the evidence as to Thomas' standing (i.e., the impact the feeding operation would have on her property's value) was conflicting, thereby creating genuine issues of material fact.

The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, vacated the Indiana Court of Appeals decision, and affirmed the trial court's decision finding Thomas lacked standing.  The Indiana Supreme Court agreed with the trial court and Court of Appeals that dismissal was not appropriate under Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6).  However, departing from the Court of Appeals' analysis, the Supreme Court concluded that the procedure for summary judgment under Trial Rule 56 did not apply.  Instead, the Supreme Court compared the situation to a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in which a trial court may hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the jurisdictional question.  Thus, the Supreme Court approved of the procedure followed by the trial court in holding an evidentiary hearing and deciding whether the Plaintiff had standing based on the conflicting evidence presented.
 
There is no specific provision in Trial Rule 12(B) that the Indiana Supreme Court relied upon in holding that the trial court may determine the Plaintiff's standing on a motion to dismiss.  Implicit in that result is the notion that standing is a legal issue for the judge, not the jury, to decide.
 
A novel procedural issue was also addressed in Edward Rose of Indiana, LLC v. Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals, Indianapolis-Marion County.  In Edward Rose, an apartment owner challenged the Indianapolis-Marion County BZA's denial of a variance sought by the apartment owner to maintain a pole sign on the premises of the apartment complex.  Like Thomas, the decision is noteworthy for the Indiana property law attorney not because of the Court's conclusion that the variance was properly denied to the apartment owner, but rather for the Court of Appeals' dictum regarding the procedure followed by the trial court.
 
Specifically, the Indiana Court of Appeals addressed under what circumstances a landowner who had unsuccessfully petitioned for a variance in the local BZA may challenge that decision based on evidence the landowner failed to offer in the zoning hearing.  The issue hinged on an Indiana statute that provides in relevant part:  "If the court determines that testimony is necessary for the proper disposition of the matter, it may take evidence to supplement the evidence and facts disclosed by the return to the writ of certiorari, but the review may not be by trial de novo."  Indiana Code section 36-7-4-1009.  The apartment owner sought to buttress its case in court with testimony and evidence that had not been submitted to the BZA.  The trial court admitted that testimony and evidence, but ruled nevertheless that the BZA's decision was not clearly erroneous or illegal.
 
Although the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision on the merits finding no clear error in the BZA's decision, the Court disagreed with the trial court's decision to hear new evidence offered by the apartment owner.  The Indiana Court of Appeals reasoned that allowing the apartment owner to present new evidence was "tantamount to conducting a trial de novo" -- in essence relitigating the merits of the variance petition from scratch.  Such an approach would directly violate Indiana Code section 36-7-4-1009's proscription that the trial court's review of BZA decisions "may not be a trial de novo."
 
The Indiana Court of Appeals elaborated to provide guidance in future cases by listing circumstances when it may be appropriate for a trial court reviewing a BZA decision to consider new evidence.  Such situations arise, for example:
 

1) when the record before the BZA is incomplete because the aggrieved party was refused an opportunity to be fully heard or the BZA excluded relevant evidence;

 2) when good and sufficient cause is shown for the failure to have offered the evidence to the BZA;

 3) when the record presented to the trial court does not contain all the evidence actually presented to the BZA;

 4) when the BZA’s record fails to present the hearing in sufficient scope to determine the merits of the appeal; and 

 5) when new evidence is discovered after the BZA’s proceedings.

An Indiana litigation law firm's understanding of Indiana procedure can be as important as knowledge of the substantive law in obtaining a positive outcome in Indiana litigation matters.  The Indiana appellate decisions summarized above guide Indiana lawyers on important procedural questions in Indiana property appeals.

by Steven M. Badger

In all litigation, but particularly in Indiana business litigation, it is important for the litigants to know the reasons for the judge's decision on the merits of the dispute.  Those reasons also become a focal point in any appeal to the Indiana appellate courts.  Indiana Trial Rule 52 serves these purposes by requiring that upon the timely written request of any party, "the court in all actions tried upon the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury . . . shall find the facts specially and state its conclusions thereon."

In Nunn Law Office v. Rosenthal, the Court of Appeals of Indiana addressed whether Trial Rule 52(A) is satisfied when a trial court makes findings orally rather than in writing.  At issue was the share of plaintiff's attorney fees that should be paid to the attorney who originally filed a personal injury action, but who was discharged by the plaintiff before the case was resolved.

The Court of Appeals observed that nothing in Trial Rule 52(A) specifies that the trial court's findings and conclusions must be in written form, although the Court of Appeals notes that written findings and conclusions are preferred.  Further, the Court reasoned that oral findings and conclusions serve the purposes of Trial Rule 52(A) "so long as they are thoroughly detailed in the record."  Therefore, the Indiana appellate court held that the trial court's failure to enter written findings and conclusions, in and of itself, does not constitute reversible error.

As to the sufficiency of the trial court's oral findings, the Indiana appellate court determined that the trial judge's oral explanation of how she determined the amount of attorneys' fees awarded to co-plaintiff's counsel was sufficient.  Among other things, the trial judge stated the number of hours, billable rates and service descriptions of the professional services for which the fees were earned.

Finally, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's use of a quantum meruit or equitable measure to determine the amount of the fees, rather than a contingency basis, because the fee contract in question failed to specify the measure of fees upon a pre-contingency termination of the representation.

This aspect of the case relating to how the fee award was determined, however, merely reaffirms existing Indiana law.  The real lesson for the Indiana appellate lawyer is that a trial court's failure to enter written findings and conclusions even when properly requested may not constitute reversible error if the trial court stated somewhere in the record the reasons for its decision.

To access case, press here

In this appeal, we are asked once again to consider what constitutes a joint venture. DLZ Indiana, LLC, ("DLZ") appeals from partial summary judgment in favor of Greene County, Indiana ("the County") on the County’s second-amended complaint alleging breach of contract. DLZ presents a single issue for our review, namely, whether the trial court erred when it concluded that DLZ was engaged in a joint venture with United Consulting Engineers, Inc. ("United") to provide architectural services for the County ("the Project").

Conclusion (slip op. at 14):  We hold that United and DLZ were not engaged in a joint venture as a matter of law. We reverse the entry of summary judgment for the County and instruct the trial court to enter partial summary judgment for DLZ on this issue.

Key Analysis (slip op. at 13, 14):  In sum, the Agreement is unambiguous with respect to whether United and DLZ were doing business as a joint venture. First, there is no evidence that they exercised joint or mutual control over the Project, which is an essential element . . . Second, and of equal significance, there is no evidence within the Agreement that United and DLZ shared profits . . . And finally, even if the Agreement were ambiguous, the designated, extrinsic evidence also demonstrates that the essential elements of joint or mutual control and shared profits are missing.

To access case, press here

Gloria J. Hayes appeals the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the Trustees of Indiana University (the "University").  There are two issues on appeal:

(1) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting the University's motion to strike portions of Hayes' opposing affidavit; and (2) Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the University.

Conclusion (slip op. at 24):  Affirmed.

Key Analysis (slip op. at 14, 20, 21):  Our review of the record reveals that the exhibits were not properly verified . . . The University was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on Hayes' breach of contract claim as she was an at-will employee, and the Human Resources Manual did not constitute a contract . . . It was incumbent upon Hayes to file notice of her claim within 180 days after her loss. This she did not do; therefore, any possible tort claim against the University is barred . . . The Legislature clearly intended to exclude the actions of the University from judicial review . . . We cannot say that either the University's decision to eliminate Hayes' position pursuant to a reduction in force or its classification of Hayes' position was made in a quasi-judicial capacity. Accordingly, the University's decisions regarding these matters are not subject to a mandate order.

To access case, press here

Appellants-defendants American United Life Insurance Company (AUL) and R.E. Moulton, Inc., (Moulton) (collectively, the appellants), appeal the grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs-appellees Restaurant Hospitality Association of Indiana (Hospitality), the Indiana District of the Assemblies of God (IAG), and CQI, Inc. (CQI) (collectively, the appellees), on the appellees' cause of action to recover premiums from the appellants that had been paid under a stop loss insurance policy. The appellants claim that the trial court erred in refusing to strike portions of an affidavit tendered by one of the appellees' witnesses and further contend that the trial court erroneously determined as a matter of law that no contract of insurance existed because there was a mutual mistake of fact. Thus, the appellants contend that the judgment awarded to the appellees constituting the amount of premiums the appellees had paid plus prejudgment interest must be set aside.

Conclusion (slip op. at 15-16):  We conclude that the trial court erred in granting the appellees' motion for summary judgment and, because the material facts were not in dispute, the trial court should have granted the appellants' motion for summary judgment. The trial court's judgment is reversed and remanded with instructions to grant the appellants' motion for summary judgment and to enter final judgment on their behalf.

Key Analysis (slip op. at 15):  We conclude that the designated evidence established that the negotiations between the parties left nothing open for future determination and that the appellees are unable to point to any material term of the stop loss policies on which the parties did not agree. Indeed, the appellants issued the stop loss policies to the appellees according to the precise terms that were requested, including the subject matter, the risk insured against, the amount the duration of the risk, and the premium. Hence, the appellees were obligated to pay the premiums, and the appellants were bound to pay the amount insured in the event of a loss.

To access case, press here

Appellant-Defendant, Clay City Consolidated School Corporation (Clay City Schools), appeals the trial court’s denial of its motion to correct error and Order on remittitur awarding Appellees-Plaintiffs, Ronna Timberman (Mother) and John Pipes II (Father), $300,000 after a jury verdict. Clay City Schools raises seven issues for our review, one of which we find dispositive and restate as: (1) Whether the trial court abused its discretion by instructing the jury in Final Instruction No. 20 that a thirteen-year-old boy is presumed to be incapable of contributory negligence.

Conclusion (slip op. at 24):  We conclude that the trial court committed reversible error when instructing the jury that Indiana law contains a rebuttable presumption that children between the age of seven and fourteen cannot be contributorily negligent. Reversed and remanded.

Key Analysis (slip op. at 13):  We conclude that Indiana law does not conclusively contain a presumption either in favor or against seven to fourteen-year-olds with respect to whether they can be found liable for their negligent acts . . . The focus of Indiana law on the issue of when a child age seven to fourteen can be held liable in negligence for his or her acts is primarily determined by an inquiry into whether the child exercised the level of care that should be expected of a child of like age, knowledge, judgment, and experience in that situation.

To access case, press here

UNPUBLISHED
 

Debra Byrum appeals the trial court’s order denying her request for unpaid commissions earned before Bookout Properties terminated her employment. Specifically, Byrum maintains that the trial court erred as a matter of law by concluding that her written commission schedule did not satisfy the “signed and written” requirement of the Statute of Frauds, specifically, Indiana Code § 32-21-1-10. 
 

Conclusion (slip op. at 2):  Concluding that her written commission schedule satisfies Indiana Code § 32-21-1-10, we reverse and remand. 
 

Key Analysis (slip op. at 6-7):  We conclude that because Bookout clearly agreed to pay Byrum a commission once a contract for a house was signed and Byrum performed her part of the bargain, Indiana Code §32-21-1-10 does not operate to prevent enforcement of the agreement . . . From the time Byrum began as a full-time employee, Bookout followed this commission schedule, and neither party denies that this writing sets forth the agreement between the parties. As a matter of law, Bookout’s written commission schedule satisfies Indiana Code § 32-21-1-10.

To access case, press here

Shepard, Chief Justice.

LaFief filed for unemployment. An administrative law judge held that he was not entitled to unemployment benefits, reasoning that LaFief was not "discharged" because his employment ended at the expiration of his contract term. The Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development reversed, finding that ISU’s decision not to reappoint LaFief equated to a "discharge." The Court of Appeals reversed the board, holding that LaFief was not entitled to unemployment benefits because he had voluntarily agreed to a one-year appointment that expired by its own terms and that he was not "discharged" from his employment when he was not reappointed. The issue is whether a university professor who agreed to a fixed-term employment contract was entitled to unemployment benefits upon the non-renewal of his contract.

Conclusion (slip op. at 5):  We hold that the professor was not voluntarily unemployed and is entitled to benefits. We affirm the Review Board’s decision.

Key Analysis (slip op. at 4):  The fact that LaFief had warning that his employment could terminate upon the contract’s expiration does not change the fact that at the end of the year he became unemployed. The termination of his employment was no more voluntary than the termination of employment of an employee at will, who is presumably on notice that his employment could terminate at any time.

Sullivan and Boehm, JJ., concur.

Dickson, J., dissents with separate opinion, in which Rucker, J., concurs:  . . . [b]ecause I conclude that Professor LaFief had no employment to leave or from which to be discharged, and further that he is personally accountable and responsible for the natural consequences of his agreement to the fixed-term contract, I would reverse the decision of the Review Board.