ILNews

Justices: City can proceed with ELA claim

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court held that the city of South Bend's claim under the Environmental Legal Action statute can continue because the statute of limitations hadn't run out. The high court did reverse summary judgment in favor of the city in its torts claims against a company because the statute of limitations bars the common law claims for environmental damage.

The Supreme Court issued a 32-page, unanimous decision Thursday in Cooper Industries, et al. v. City of South Bend, et al., No. 49S04-0711-CV-541. At issue was whether Cooper could be held liable for South Bend's claims of negligence, private nuisance, trespass, public nuisance, and an environmental legal action under Indiana Code Section 13-30-9-2 after discovering land it purchased that housed Studebaker manufacturing sites was contaminated. It discovered the contamination in the late 1980s. Through a series of acquisitions and mergers, Cooper Industries obtained the assets of Studebaker.

The city filed suit in March 2003. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of South Bend on the issue of successorship, the city's common law claims, and that the ELA claim was timely because the city filed it less than six years after the ELA statute became effective. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, holding the 6-year statute of limitations barred all the claims.

The high court reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of South Bend's common law claims, ruling the claims accrued more than six years before they were filed.

But South Bend can proceed with its ELA claim because it can be a plaintiff under the ELA and the addition of the ELA to current code created a new action, wrote Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard. Since a new action was created, no cause of action could have existed before its effective date. South Bend's claims under the ELA couldn't have been brought before the action was added on Feb. 28, 1998. Adopting the six-year statute of limitations for this case, South Bend fell within the limits by filing its action March 19, 2003.

The Supreme Court also affirmed Cooper holds the corporate liability for surviving claims as a result of Studebaker's actions. There is sufficient evidence to support the 1967 transaction between Studebaker and Worthington, to form Studebaker-Worthington, constituted a de facto merger such that Cooper may be held to answer South Bend's claims, wrote Chief Justice Shepard. The trial court was also correct to find the 1967 transaction was a mere continuation of the earlier corporate forms.

Even though Cooper argues Delaware law should control because all of the acquiring entities were Delaware corporations, the Supreme Court ruled Indiana law applies because the claim is about property damage which happened in Indiana. The law of the place of the wrong occurred governs, wrote the chief justice.

The Supreme Court remanded for further proceedings on the merits of the city's ELA claim.

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. Im very happy for you, getting ready to go down that dirt road myself, and im praying for the same outcome, because it IS sometimes in the childs best interest to have visitation with grandparents. Thanks for sharing, needed to hear some positive posts for once.

  2. Been there 4 months with 1 paycheck what can i do

  3. our hoa has not communicated any thing that takes place in their "executive meetings" not executive session. They make decisions in these meetings, do not have an agenda, do not notify association memebers and do not keep general meetings minutes. They do not communicate info of any kind to the member, except annual meeting, nobody attends or votes because they think the board is self serving. They keep a deposit fee from club house rental for inspection after someone uses it, there is no inspection I know becausee I rented it, they did not disclose to members that board memebers would be keeping this money, I know it is only 10 dollars but still it is not their money, they hire from within the board for paid positions, no advertising and no request for bids from anyone else, I atteended last annual meeting, went into executive session to elect officers in that session the president brought up the motion to give the secretary a raise of course they all agreed they hired her in, then the minutes stated that a diffeerent board member motioned to give this raise. This board is very clickish and has done things anyway they pleased for over 5 years, what recourse to members have to make changes in the boards conduct

  4. Where may I find an attorney working Pro Bono? Many issues with divorce, my Disability, distribution of IRA's, property, money's and pressured into agreement by my attorney. Leaving me far less than 5% of all after 15 years of marriage. No money to appeal, disabled living on disability income. Attorney's decision brought forward to judge, no evidence ever to finalize divorce. Just 2 weeks ago. Please help.

  5. For the record no one could answer the equal protection / substantive due process challenge I issued in the first post below. The lawless and accountable only to power bureaucrats never did either. All who interface with the Indiana law examiners or JLAP be warned.

ADVERTISEMENT