ILNews

Justices accept 2 civil cases

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Two civil cases got the go ahead from the Indiana Supreme Court this week to move up for consideration by the state's justices.

During its weekly conference on Thursday, the justices granted transfer in the cases Suzanne Eads, et al. v. Community Hospital, No. 45A03-0807-CV-350, and Sheehan Construction Co., et al. v. Continental Casket Co., et al., No. 49A02-0805-CV-420.

The Eads case involves the issue of whether the Journey's Account Statute applied to a woman's medical malpractice claim filed after the statute of limitations expired. A split Indiana Court of Appeals last year affirmed summary judgment in favor of the hospital in Eads' medical malpractice claim that resulted from a fall in the hospital while using crutches. Eads was in the hospital for an ankle injury and asked for a wheelchair to exit the hospital; personnel refused and gave her crutches. She fell in a foyer area and injured her back and left hand. Justices will decide how the Journey's Account Statute applies in a medical malpractice case that follows an underlying negligence claim against the hospital where a plaintiff was injured.

In Sheehan, the Court of Appeals last year affirmed a Marion Superior Court decision to enter summary judgment in favor of insurers and an insurance broker. The case involves a group of homeowners who alleged their homes were negligently constructed by Sheehan's subcontractors. Though the parties settled for about $2.8 million, that sparked a coverage issue relating to Sheehan's comprehensive general liability policy and whether the company should be indemnified. Ultimately, Sheehan asked the justices to take up the issue, which involves disputes about what coverage, if any, is provided by commercial general liability insurance policies after allegedly faulty workmanship by a subcontractor. Justices heard arguments Thursday morning and granted transfer later in the day.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  2. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  3. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  4. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  5. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

ADVERTISEMENT