COA affirms $2.3 million damage award

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
An Evansville shopping center owner is entitled to $2.3 million in damages for loss of access to a public thoroughfare resulting from a state highway project, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.

The court's unanimous decision came in State of Indiana v. Kimco of Evansville, Inc., No. 82A01-0607-CV-301, affirming a Vanderburgh Circuit jury award that stems from the road project in 2000 impacting the Plaza East Shopping Center along State Road 66 and Green River Road.

In June 2000, the state took 0.154 acres of Plaza East (owned by Kimco) along Green River Road as part of the construction project to improve access to the state highway. Part of the project involved putting in a concrete median and changing the setup of the shopping center's two entrances, causing traffic backups and a loss of business by the time the trial began early last year.

A four-day trial in February 2006 resulted in a jury verdict of $2.3 million for Kimco, or a total judgment of almost $3.2 million with legal costs and interest. The state appealed, arguing that Kimco cannot be compensated for its loss of access as a matter of law, and that the trial court improperly admitted evidence of damages associated with the loss of access and incorrectly instructed the jury on that issue.

But in its 17-page decision that includes diagrams to map out the area being debated, the appellate judges determined that Kimco was entitled to the damages since the state had taken property and the access and the reconfiguration of the entrances amounted to more than a "mere inconvenience."

The court cited an Indiana Supreme Court ruling from January in Biddle v. BAA Indianapolis LLC, 860 N.E.2d 570, 575 (Ind. 2007), as rationale in making its decision. That decision involving the Indianapolis International Airport clarified when a taking has occurred as a question of law.

In this case, the concrete median and refigured turn and driving lanes in front of the property contributed to the problem, the court said.

"Any one of these changes by itself might not amount to a taking of access rights. When considering all of these changes, however, we conclude that a taking has occurred as a matter of law," the court wrote. "The state's reconfiguration of Green River Road and the changes to the Southern Entrance and Northern Entrance are peculiar to Plaza East and Kimco, and the changes are 'of a degree that exceeds mere inconvenience.'"

Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit