ILNews

2011 update of DTCI amicus cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

This will be my final annual update of Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana’s participation in amicus cases. I have decided after over 10 years heading up the Amicus Committee, it is time for me to step aside. Beginning Jan. 1, 2012, Don Kite will assume the chair. I will stay on the committee for another year to help Don with the transition.

In 2011, DTCI has participated as amicus in several significant legal issues affecting the defense bar. It was involved in a certified question concerning the crash worthiness doctrine and prepared a brief concerning whether failure to maintain medical records constitutes spoliation. Finally, the Amicus Committee was involved in one of the cases deciding whether plaintiffs in wrongful death cases were entitled to attorney fees. The Amicus Committee also welcomed a new member, Edward Harney of Hume Smith Geddes Green & Simmons.

james johnson Johnson

Below are the 2011 cases:

Cases decided at the Indiana Supreme Court

Nicholas Green v. Ford Motor Co., 942 N.E.2d 791 (Ind. 2011), Certified Question from S.D. Ind. The court decided that in a crash worthiness case alleging enhanced injuries under the Indiana Product Liability Act, the jury can apportion fault to the person suffering physical harm when the alleged fault relates to the cause of the underlying accident. Ross Rudolph of Rudolph Fine Porter & Johnson and James Godbold of Kightlinger & Gray’s Evansville office prepared the amicus brief.

Ashby and O’Brien v. Davidson, 949 N.E.2d 301 (Ind. 2011). The court held a claims-made policy of insurance requires notice by an insured prior to the expiration of the policy period. However, the court held there was a material issue of fact on plaintiff’s estoppel claim (DTCI did not participate in the estoppel claim). Don Kite of Gonzalez Saggio & Harlan wrote the amicus brief.

Howard Regional Health Systems v. Gordon, 952 N.E.2d 182 (Ind. 2011). The court held there is no spoliation cause of action for failing to comply with a statute concerning maintenance of health care records against a health care provider who fails to maintain medical records. The amicus brief was written by Tom Bodkin of Bamberger Foreman Oswald & Hahn.

Hematology-Oncology of Indiana, P.C. v. Fruits, 950 N.E.2d 295 (Ind. 2011). The court held plaintiffs are entitled to an award of attorney fees and expenses pursuant to the Adult Wrongful Death Act. Robert Parker prepared the DTCI amicus brief.

Cases pending at Indiana Court of Appeals

Santelli v. Rahmatullah and Super 8 Motel, No. 49D04-0704-CT-14720. The issue is whether in a premises liability case where a person was murdered, the premises owner can name the criminal assailant as a nonparty. Lucy Dollens of Frost Brown Todd wrote the amicus brief.

I would like to thank all the individuals and firms that supplied briefs in the above matters. This work is time consuming and challenging. The work of the brief writers is appreciated by everyone at DTCI.

As usual, I speak for the DTCI board in expressing my thanks to the members of Amicus Committee: Michele Bryant (Bamberger Foreman Oswald & Hahn); Lucy Dollens; Michael Dugan (Dugan & Voland); Daniel Glavin (O’Neill McFadden & Willett); Phil Kalamaros (Hunt Suedhoff Kalamaros); Don Kite Sr.; Crystal Rowe (Kightlinger & Gray) and Edward Harney. I speak for the entire committee when I thank the DTCI board of directors and its members for their continued support of the Amicus Committee.

Finally, on a personal note, my time as Amicus chair has been one of the most professionally fulfilling experiences in my career. The combination of the intellectual debates on the committee, the policy discussions with the board and the work with the brief writers will never be duplicated. I hope Don has as great an experience as I have had over the last 10 years.•

__________

James D. Johnson is a partner in the litigation department at Rudolph Fine Porter & Johnson in Evansville. Johnson will be vice president of DTCI beginning Jan. 1, 2012. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT