ILNews

Reimbursement to estate should be proportional

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court ruled today that a proportional allocation of proceeds from a pre-trial settlement would be best way to reimburse an estate for funeral and burial expenses.

The high court accepted In the Matter of the Supervised Administration of the Estate of Lawrence W. Inlow, deceased; Anita Inlow v. Jason L. Inlow, et al., No. 29S02-0902-CV-89, to answer the question: To what extent is a decedent's estate entitled to payment from a pre-trial settlement of a wrongful-death action in which the settlement doesn't allocate specifically between different types of damages.

Lawrence Inlow was killed in 1997 when he was struck in the head by a blade of a company helicopter. At the time of his death, he had no will.

Inlow's widow, Anita, paid $284,000 in funeral and burial costs, and then sought and received reimbursement from the estate. After a settlement was reached in a wrongful-death action in federal court, the estate sought reimbursement of that money in 2004. The Hamilton County trial court ordered in 2007 that Inlow's estate receive full reimbursement of the $284,000.

Anita appealed, believing Indiana Code Section 34-23-1-1 requires the payment of funeral and burial expenses from a wrongful-death award to an estate only when the award specifies what amount should go toward funeral expenses. If the award is able to be used to reimburse the estate, she argued she and her dependent son will receive no portion of those monies.

The defendants in this case, the personal representative of Inlow's estate and his four adult children from a previous marriage, argued the statute requires the damages to be used first to reimburse the estate for the funeral and burial costs incurred whether or not a portion of the damages award was designated for these expenses.

A split Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the trial court order, but the Supreme Court disagreed today. In its decision, Justice Brent Dickson wrote, "To impose upon all pre-trial wrongful death settlements a requirement that the net proceeds must first be allocated to medical, hospital, funeral, and burial expenses before distribution for other damages could frequently, as here, be inequitable and create an undesired counter-incentive to seek settlement."

The justices also disagreed with Anita's argument that none of the settlement could be paid to the estate for funeral or burial expenses because it didn't specify any of that recovered money was to be used for that purpose.

"It is quite apparent from the language of the Act that, in creating a statutory cause of action for wrongful death, the legislature intended particular attention to the payment of medical, hospital, funeral, and burial expenses," the justice wrote. "To extend this legislative objective to pre-trial settlements, a proportional allocation appears most equitable."

The court should direct payment from a pre-trial wrongful-death settlement the part of the medical, hospital, funeral, and burial expenses that corresponds to the ratio of the total of such expenses to the estimated total damages sustained.

The case is remanded to the trial court for a determination of the portion of the funeral and burial expenses that will be reimbursed to the estate from the wrongful-death settlement.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  2. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  3. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  4. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

  5. No, Ron Drake is not running against incumbent Larry Bucshon. That’s totally wrong; and destructively misleading to say anything like that. All political candidates, including me in the 8th district, are facing voters, not incumbents. You should not firewall away any of voters’ options. We need them all now more than ever. Right? Y’all have for decades given the Ds and Rs free 24/7/365 coverage of taxpayer-supported promotion at the expense of all alternatives. That’s plenty of head-start, money-in-the-pocket advantage for parties and people that don’t need any more free immunities, powers, privileges and money denied all others. Now it’s time to play fair and let voters know that there are, in fact, options. Much, much better, and not-corrupt options. Liberty or Bust! Andy Horning Libertarian for IN08 USA House of Representatives Freedom, Indiana

ADVERTISEMENT