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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT